U

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

FILED IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
P11: 19 SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
DURHAM COUN FILE NO.: 24-CVS-1218
DURHAH CO. C.S.C.
MONIQUE HOLSEY

Plaintiff,

Vv.

NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE

JARROD B. EDENS. EDENS INVESTMENTS, OF REMOVAL OF ACTION
INC., SARA M. YOUNG, Individually and in her UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)
official capacity as City of Durham Planning
Director, KIMBERLY M. REHBERG,
Individually and in her official capacity as
City Attorney for Durham, JILLIAN N.
JOHNSON, Individually and in her official
capacity as a member of Durham City Council,
MARK A. MIDDLETON, Individually and in his
official capacity as a member of Durham of
City Council and Mayor Pro Tempore,
and THE CITY OF DURHAM,
a Municipal Corporation.

Defendants.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants City of Durham, Jillian Johnson, Mark

Anthony Middleton, and Sara Young have this day filed the attached Notice of Removal ofAction

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) removing this case to the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina.

Page 1 of 4
 &
This the 2"4 day of April 2024

By:
Jo seboro
or Assistant City Attorney
N.C. State Bar No. 26680
mal: [email protected]
A nMiles
Senior Assistant City Attorney
N.C. State Bar No. 53048
Email: [email protected]
Durham City Attorney's Office
101 City Hall Plaza 2nd Floor
Durham, North Carolina 27701
Phone: (919) 560-4158
Fax: (919) 560-4660
Attorneys for Defendants City of Durham, Sara
Young, Jillian Johnson, and Mark Anthony
Middleton

Page 2 of 4
 &
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing document was served this day upon the

following via email and fax:

Attorneys for Defendant Kim Rehberg:

Pat Kane La-Deidre Matthews

N.C. State Bar No. 36861 N.C. State Bar No. 54358
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Fox Rothschild Fox Rothschild
230 N. Elm Street, Ste. 1200 101 S. Tryon Street, Suite 1700
Greensboro, NC 27401 Charlotte, NC 28280
Phone: 336-378-5200 Phone: 704-384-2600
Fax: 336-378-5400 Fax: 704-384-2800

Attorney for Defendants Jarrod Edens and Eden Investments, Inc.:

Ryan J. Adams
N.C. State Bar No. 27687
Email: [email protected]
Adams, Howell, Sizemore, & Adams, P.A.
1600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27608
Phone: 919-900-4700
Fax: 919-839-2230

Attorneys for Plaintiff Monique Holsey-Hyman:

Corey Cartwright James T. Johnson

Florida State Bar No. 0641928 N.C. State Bar No. 19087
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Law Office of Corey Cartwright, P.A.1500 Jonathan W. Martin
Beville Road, Ste. 606 N.C. State Bar No. 49381
Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Email: [email protected]
Phone: 800-766-4679 Dement Askew & Johnson
Fax: 501-642-7709 P.O. Box Office 711
Raleigh, NC 27602
Phone: 919-833-5555
Fax: 919-832-8287

Page 3 of 4
 & U

This the 2™4 day of April 2024

By:
Jo Roseboro /
Séniof Assistant City Attorney
State Bar No. 26680
Email [email protected]
Aarin Miles
Senior Assistant City Attorney
N.C. State Bar No. 53048
Email: [email protected]
Durham City Attorney's Office
101 City Hall Plaza 2nd Floor
Durham, North Carolina 27701
Phone: (919) 560-4158
Fax: (919) 560-4660
Attorneys for Defendants City of Durham, Sara
Young, Jillian Johnson, and Mark Anthony
Middleton

Page 4 of 4
 &
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
DURHAM DIVISION

MONIQUE HOLSEY-HYMAN,

Plaintiff,

V.
FILE NO.
JARROD B. EDENS. EDENS INVESTMENTS,
INC., SARA M. YOUNG, Individually and in her
official capacity as City of Durham Planning [Formerly Durham County, North
Director, KIMBERLY M. REHBERG, North Carolina Superior Court
Individually and in her official capacity as File No. 24-CVS-1218]
City Attorney for Durham, JILLIAN N.
JOHNSON, Individually and in her official
capacity as a member of Durham City Council,
MARK A. MIDDLETON, Individually and in his
official capacity as member of Durham of
a

City Council and Mayor Pro Tempore,

and THE CITY OF DURHAM,
a Municipal Corporation.

Defendants.

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF
ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C § 1441(a)

TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants City of Durham ("Defendant City"), Sara

Young ("Defendant Young"), Jillian Johnson ("Defendant Johnson"), and Mark Anthony

Middleton ("Defendant Middleton') --

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367, 1441, and 1446 --

hereby remove this civil action from the Durham County, North Carolina Superior Court (where
 ¢
it is currently pending (File No. 24-CVS-1218) to the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, Durham Division.

This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the

face of the complaint asserts a First Amendment free speech retaliation claim through 42 U.S.C. §

1983. (Compl. ff 269-86). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims

under 28 U.S.C § 1367. Venue is proper in this Court because the United States District Court for

the Middle District of North Carolina is the federal judicial district embracing Durham County,

North Carolina where the state court action was originally filed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a),

1446(a); see also id. at § 113(b).

I. Background

1. Plaintiff is a former member of the Durham City Council. (Compl. ¢ 1). Plaintiff alleges

that Defendants made defamatory oral and written statements about her in retaliation for her vote

against a real estate development project when she was on City Council. (dd. at ff1 74, 104, 110,

123, 168a-f).

2. On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Durham County, North Carolina

Superior Court styled as Monique Holsey-Hyman v. Jarrod B. Edens et al. (File No. 24-CVS-1218)

and had civil summonses issued to Defendants City of Durham, Sara Young, Mark Anthony

Middleton, and Jillian Johnson. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), copies of the complaint and civil

summonses are attached hereto.

Il. Grounds for Removal

Removal Authorized Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)

3. "Except as expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in State court

of which the district courts of the United States have original Jurisdiction, may be removed by the

Page 2 of 10
 U
defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division

embracing the place where such action is pending." See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

Federal Question Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331

4. This Court has original, federal question jurisdiction over the federal constitutional claim

that is alleged on the face of the complaint. (Compl. 269-86).

5. Under 28 U.S.C § 1331, "[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Plaintiff asserts a

claim under the First Amendment through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

6. Plaintiff's seventh claim for relief alleges that certain Defendants violated her First

Amendment free speech rights. (/d.). Plaintiff alleges that "(t]he First Amendment to the United

States Constitution establishes and provides an elected or duly appointed representative the right

to speak or vote freely on questions of government policy without fear of retribution or retaliation."

(Ud. at 1 270). Plaintiff alleges further that Defendants made defamatory statements about Plaintiff

in retaliation for Plaintiff's voting against a real estate development project. (/d. at q 274).

Supplemental Jurisdiction Over State Law Claims Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)

7. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.

8. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), "...

in any civil action of which the district courts have original

jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are

so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form a part of the same

case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution."

9. Plaintiff's complaint contains ten state law claims for relief: slander per se (Compl. 114

186-197), slander per se (/d. at 198-207), libel per se (Id. at 208-21), libel per quod (/d. at

222-38), libel per se (/d. at bh 239-54), slander per se (Id. at 11 255-68), civil conspiracy (Id. at JJ

Page 3 of 10
 é VU

287-92), intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress (/d. at §§] 293-98), breach of

fiduciary duty (/d. at FJ 299-304), and punitive damages. (/d. at FJ 305-13).

10. Allof Plaintiff's state law claims share raa common nucleus of operative fact with the federal,

First Amendment retaliation claim. The common nucleus of operative fact is the circumstances

surrounding Plaintiff's allegedly voting against a real estate development project as a City Council

member (/d. at { 67), and Defendants' allegedly taking defamatory actions against her in retaliation
for her vote. (/d. at ff] 168a-f).

11. The facts alleged to support the state law claims show that the claims are not determinable

without reference to the facts alleged to support the First Amendment retaliation claim:

a. To support her slander per se claims against Defendants Edens and Edens

Investments (first claim for relief), Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Edens "...

uttered, and caused to be uttered words to Defendant Sara Young and to potentially

others ... that were false and defamatory. (/d. at J 187).

b. To support her slander per se claim against Defendant Young (second claim for

relief), Plaintiff alleges that

"...
[Defendant Young] uttered words to [Defendant

Rehberg] and potentially others ... that were false and defamatory. (Id. at 7 199).

To support her slander per se claim against Defendant Rehberg (third claim for

relief), Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Rehberg published a March 13, 2023, letter

and March 14, 2023, memorandum that were false and defamatory. (/d. at 209-

12).

d. To support her alternative liber per quod claim against Defendants Rehberg and

City (fourth claim for relief), Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Rehberg's March 13,

2023, letter and March 14, 2023, memorandum contain false statements that

Page 4 of 10
 are defamatory when considered in connection with innuendo, colloquium, and the

circumstances in which they were made, thus constituting libel per quod." (Jd. at J
233).

€. To support her libel per se claims against Defendants Johnson, Middleton, and City

(fifth claim for relief), Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Johnson and Middleton

published a resolution of censure about Plaintiff that is false and defamatory. (dd.

at 240-44). Alternatively, Plaintiff alleges that statements in the resolution of

censure are "...defamatory when considered in connection with innuendo,

colloquium, and the circumstances in which they were made, thus constituting libel

per quod. (dd. at J 249).

f. To support her slander per se claims against Defendants Johnson, Middleton, and

City (sixth cause of action), Plaintiff alleges that; during a March 23, 2023, City

Council meeting; Defendants Johnson and Middleton "...uttered and caused to

uttered ... words to the public ... that were false and defamatory." (/d. at J 256).
To support her civil conspiracy claim (eighth claim for relief), Plaintiff alleges that
ee
Defendants conspired to unfairly and wrongfully defame and disparage

[Plaintiff], retaliate against her for her vote on the [real estate development project],

[and] silence her voice on future development matters to come before the Council

29
Ud. at J 289).
Plaintiff asserts an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and, in

the alternative, a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim (ninth claim for

relief) against all Defendants. To support her intentional infliction of emotional

distress claim, Plaintiff alleges that "'...[t]he defamatory, retaliatory, and wrongful

Page 5 of 10
 é
actions of Defendants ... constitute extreme and outrageous conduct. Defendants'

actions were beyond the bounds usually tolerated by a decent society and were

intended to cause severe emotional and mental distress to [Plaintiff]." (Ud. at ] 294). 4

Plaintiff supports her alternative negligent infliction emotional distress claim by

alleging that Defendants breached a duty of care owed to Plaintiff, "...and therefore
..."

negligently caused emotional distress (/d. at q 296).

i. To support her breach of fiduciary claim against Defendant Rehberg (tenth claim

for relief), Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Rehberg breached a fiduciary duty owed

to Plaintiff by allegedly engaging in the conduct described in the complaint's

factual recitation, namely, publishing the March 13, 2023, letter and March 14,

2023, memorandum. (Jd. at § 303).

j. To support her claim for punitive damages against all Defendants (eleventh claim

for relief), Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' alleged defamatory statements (/d. at

{ 306) were willful and wanton, and malicious. (/d. at " 309-10).
Other Requirements for Removal

12. This Notice of Removal was timely filed. The relevant statute provides that "[e]ach

defendant shall have 30 days after receipt ... of the initial pleading ... to file the notice of removal.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(B). Defendant City of Durham was served with the complaint on

March 7, 2024, and filed this Notice of Removal was filed less than 30 days later on April 1, 2024.

13. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A), Defendants Edens, Edens Investments, and

Rehberg consent to removal as their attorneys' signatures indicate below.

Page 6 of 10
 &
III. Reservation of Rights

14. This Notice of Removal is not intended as an admission of fact, law, or liability. By filing

this Notice of Removal, Defendants do not waive any defenses or objections.

This the 2™ day of April 2024

By: /s/John Roseboro

John Roseboro
Senior Assistant City Attorney
N.C. State Bar No. 26680
Email [email protected]
Aarin Miles
Senior Assistant City Attorney
N.C. State Bar No. 53048
Email: [email protected]
Durham City Attorney's Office
101 City Hall Plaza 2nd Floor
Durham, North Carolina 27701
Phone: (919) 560-4158
Fax: (919) 560-4660
Attorneys for Defendants City of Durham, Sara
Young, Jillian Johnson, and Mark Anthony
Middleton

Page 7 of 10
 &
CO-DEFENDANTS' CONSENT TO REMOVAL:

Attorneys for Defendant Kim Rehberg:

Pat Kane
/ s/
Pat Kane
N.C. State Bar No. 36861
Email: [email protected]
Fox Rothschild
230 N. Elm Street, Ste. 1200
Greensboro, NC 27401
Phone: 336-378-5200
Fax: 336-378-5400

La-Deidre Matthews
N.C. State Bar No. 54358
Email: [email protected]
Fox Rothschild
101 S. Tryon Street, Suite 1700
Charlotte, NC 28280
Phone: 704-384-2600
Fax: 704-384-2800

Attorney for Defendants Jarrod Edens and Edens Investments, Inc.

/s/ Ryan Adams

Ryan J. Adams
N.C. State Bar No. 27687
Adams Howell
1600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27608
Phone: 919-900-4700
Fax: 919-839-2230

Page 8 of 10
 &
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing document has been electronically filed

with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which system will automatically generate and

send a Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) to the undersigned filing user and registered users of

record. Furthermore, copies of the foregoing document were faxed to the following:

Attorneys for Defendant Kim Rehberg:

Pat Kane
N.C. State Bar No. 36861
Email: [email protected]
Fox Rothschild
230 N. Elm Street, Ste. 1200
Greensboro, NC 27401
Phone: 336-378-5200
Fax: 336-378-5400

La-Deidre Matthews
N.C. State Bar No. 54358
Email: [email protected]
Fox Rothschild
101 S. Tryon Street, Suite 1700
Charlotte, NC 28280
Phone: 704-384-2600
Fax: 704-384-2800

Attorney for Defendants Jarrod Edens and Eden Investments, Inc.:

Ryan J. Adams
N.C. State Bar No. 27687
Email: [email protected]
Adams Howell
1600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27608
Phone: 919-900-4700
Fax: 919-839-2230

Page 9 of 10
 é w

Attorneys for Plaintiff Monique Holsey-Hyman:

Corey Cartwright
Florida State Bar No. 0641928
Email: [email protected]
Law Office of Corey Cartwright, P.A.
1500 Beville Road, Ste. 606
Daytona Beach, FL 32114
Phone: 800-766-4679
Fax: 501-642-7709

James T. JJohnson
N.C. State Bar No. 19087
Email: [email protected]
Jonathan W. Martin
N.C. State Bar No. 49381
Email: [email protected]
Dement Askew & Johnson
P.O. Box Office 711
Raleigh, NC 27602
Phone: 919-833-5555
Fax: 919-832-8287

By: John Roseboro

/ s/
John Roseboro
Senior Assistant City Attorney
N.C. State Bar No. 26680
Email [email protected]
Aarin Miles
Senior Assistant City Attorney
N.C. State Bar No. 53048
Email: [email protected]
Durham City Attorney's Office
101 City Hall Plaza 2nd Floor
Durham, North Carolina 27701
Phone: (919) 560-4158
Fax: (919) 560-4660
Attorneys for Defendants City of Durham, Sara
Young, Jillian Johnson, and Mark Anthony
Middleton

Page 10 of 10
 w

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

DURHAM COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
DURHAM COUNTY 24 CVS 1218

MONIQUE HOLSEY-HYMA 1 8 2024

Plaintiff, :
BY

Vv.

JARROD B. EDENS, EDENS ) ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE ON

INVESTMENTS, INC., SARA M. BEHALF OF JARROD B. EDENS AND
YOUNG, Individually and in her official EDENS INVESTMENTS, INC.
capacity as City of Durham Planning )
Director, KIMBERLY M. REHBERG,
)
Individually and in her official capacity as
City Attorney for Durham, JILLIAN N.
JOHNSON, Individually and in her official )
capacity as a member of the Durham City )
Council, MARK A. MIDDLETON,
Individually and in his official capacity
member of the Durham City Council and
asa)
Mayor Pro Tempore, and THE CITY OF
DURHAM, a Municipal Corporation.

Defendants.
)

This is to certify that the undersigned counsel for the Defendants Jarrod B. Edens and Edens

Investments, Inc. ("Defendants") has been authorized and instructed by said Defendants to accept

service of process and service of a copy of the Complaint and Summonses in the above-entitled

civil action on their behalf, and pursuant to Defendants' express authority, has in fact, effective as

of March 13, 2024, pursuant to Rule 4 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, accepted

service of a copy of the Complaint in this civil action and Civil Summonses duly issued and

directed to each of the above-identified Defendants; that such acceptance of service was made

inside the state of North Carolina; that the undersigned is more than eighteen (18) years of age and

is not under any mental disability; and that by acceptance of such process, the above-identified

2way
4
@

Defendants hereby submit to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court Division of the General Court

of Justice of Durham County, North Carolina.

This the / day of March, 2024.

ADAMS, HOWELL, SIZEMORE & ADAMS, P.A.

By:
Ryan J. Ad
1600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27608
Telephone: (919) 900-4700
E-mail: [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants Jarrod B. Edens and Edens
Investments, Inc.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

WAKE COUNTY

Sworn to and subscribed before me

this th day of March, 2024.
NOT,
re
me
Notary Publi
2 UBLIC
v llen
Printed Name of Notary Public MN "

My Commission expires:

[NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL]

2
 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF DURHAM 24CVS1218

MONIQUE HOLSEY-HYMAN,

Plaintiff,

V.

JARROD B. EDENS, EDENS

INVESTMENTS, INC., SARA M.
YOUNG, Individually and in her official
capacity as City of Durham Planning
Director, KIMBERLY M. REHBERG, ORDER EXTENDING TIME
Individually and in her official capacity as
City Attorney for Durham, JILLIAN N.
JOHNSON, Individually and in her official
capacity as é member of the Durham City
Council, MARK A. MIDDLETON,
Individually and in his official capacity as a
member of the Durham City Council and
Mayor Pro Tempore, and THE CITY OF
DURHAM, a Municipal Corporation,

Defendants.

Upon motion of Defendants Jarrod B. Edens and Edens Investments, Inc. (hereinafter
collectively "Defendants"), it is hereby ordered that the time within which Defendants may
respond to Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby enlarged by thirty (30) days through and including May
12, 2024.
This th Aah day of March, 2024.

ass Clerk of Superior Court

3-03
 * w

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF DURHAM 24CVS1218

MONIQUE HOLSEY-HYMAN,

Plaintiff,

V.

JARROD B. EDENS, EDENS

INVESTMENTS, INC., SARA M.
YOUNG, Individually and in her official
capacity as City of Durham Planning
Director, KIMBERLY M. REHBERG, MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Individually and in her official capacity as
City Attorney for Durham, JILLIAN N.
JOHNSON, Individually and in her official
capacity as member of the Durham City
a

Council, MARK A. MIDDLETON,

Individually and in his official capacity as a
member of the Durham City Council and
Mayor Pro Tempore, and THE CITY OF
DURHAM, a Municipal Corporation,

Defendants.

Defendants Jarrod B. Edens and Edens Investments, Inc. (hereinafter collectively

"Defendants") hereby move the Court pursuant to Rule 6 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil
Procedure for an order to enlarge the time within which to file an answer or otherwise respond to
Plaintiff's Complaint filed March 5, 2024 (hereinafter "Complaint"), by an additional thirty (30)
days through and including May 12, 2024.

In support of said Motion, Defendants shows the Court that Complaint was served upon
them on March 13, 2024, and that, therefore, this Motion is made before the expiration of the thirty
(30) day period allowed under the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants further
show that additional time is needed to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint.
 © Y
This the 25th day of March, 2024.

ADAMS, HOWELL, SIZEMORE & ADAMS, P.A.

»: NC Bee
Ryan J. Adams
NC State Bar No. 27687
Joseph B. Adams
NC State Bar No. 40232
1600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27608
Telephone: (919) 900-4700
Facsimile: (919) 839-2230
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants Jarrod B. Edens and
Edens Investments, Inc.
 © e
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that the foregoing document was served upon all parties of record by by
mailing a copy thereof to the address indicated below with the proper postage attached and
deposited in an official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal
Service in Raleigh, North Carolina, in accordance with Rule 5 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil
Procedure.

This the 25th day of March, 2024.

ADAMS, HOWELL, SIZEMORE & ADAMS, P.A.

wn. QAGAE,
Ryan J. Adams
NC State Bar No. 27687
Joseph B. Adams
NC State Bar No. 40232
1600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27608
Telephone: (919) 900-4700
Facsimile: (919) 839-2230
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants Jarrod B. Edens and
Edens Investments, Inc.

SERVED:

Corey C. Cartwright
LAW OFFICES OF COREY CARTWRIGHT, P.A.
1500 Beville Road, Suite 606
Daytona Beach, FL 32114
Attorney for Plaintiff

James T. Johnson
Jonathan W. Martin
DEMENT ASKEW JOHNSON & MARSHALL, LLP
P. O. Box 711
Raleigh, NC 27602
 @®
PAID har 06 2024

File No
STATE OF NORTHCAROLINA
Durham In The General Court Of Justice
County District Superior Court Division
Name Of Piainliff
Monique Holsey-Hyman
Address
CIVIL SUMMONS
c/o DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP, P.O. Box 711
DALIAS AND PLURIES SUMMONS (ASSESS FEE)
City, State, Zip
Raleigh a nc(YY47602
VERSUS GS. 1A-1, Rules 3 and 4
Name Of Defendant(s) Date Original Summons Issued
Jarrod B. Edens, et al.
Date(s) Subsequent Summons(es) Issued

To Each Of The Defendant(s) Named Below:

Name And Address Of Oefendant 1

Jarrod B. Edens Alternate Address

8414 Wheatstone Ln. 112 E. Main Street

Raleigh NC 27613-1477 Durham NC 27701

IMPORTANT! You have been sued! These papers are legal documents, DO NOT throw these papers out!
You have to respond within 30 days. You may want to talk with a lawyer about your case as soon as
possible, and, if needed, speak with someone who reads English and can translate these papers!
jIMPORTANTE! jSe ha entablado un proceso civil en su contra! Estos papeles son documentos legales.
iNO TIRE estos papeles!
Tiene que contestar a mas tardar en 30 dias. [Puede querer consultar con un abogado lo antes posible
acerca de su caso y, de ser necesario, hablar con alguien que lea inglés y que pueda traducir estos
documentos!
A Civil Action Has Been Commenced Against Yout
You are notified to appear and answer the complaint of the plaintiff as follows:
1. Serve a copy of your written answer to the complaint upon the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney within thirty (30) days after you have been
served. You may serve your answer by delivering a copy to the plaintiff or by mailing it to the piaintiff's last known address, and
2. File the original of the written answer with the Clerk of Superior Court of the county named above.
If you fail to answer the complaint, the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the compiaint.
Name And Address Of Plaintiffs Attomey (if none, Address Of Plaintif) Date Time

James T. Johnson 24 3
a

DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP Signature

P.O. Box 711

Raleigh NC 27602 Assistant CSC 6 superior Court
Deputy CSC Clerk

Date Of Endorsement Time

ENDORSEMENT (ASSESS FEE) Claw [Jem
This Summons was originally issued on the date indicated Signature
above and returned not served. At the request of the plaintiff,
the time within which this Summons must be served is
extended sixty (60) days. []pepuycsc [JAssistaarcsc Clerk Of Superior Court

NOTE TO PARTIES: Many counties have MANDATORY ARBITRATION programs in which most cases where the amount in controversy is $25,000 or
less are heard by an arbitrator before a trial. The parties will be nolified if this case is assigned for mandatory arbitration, and, if
So, what procedure Is to be followed.

(Over)
AOC-CV-100, Rev. 4/18
© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 RETURNOF SERVICE
: :
: :
:
: :

| certify that this Summons and a copy of the complaint were received and served as follows:

DEFENDANT 1

Time Served Na fendant

cD
Date Served
Clam (Jeu AA B
LJ By delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint.
CO By leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual piace of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
CO As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by detivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Namo And Address Of Person With Whom Copies Left (if corporation, give title of person copies left with)

CJ Other manner of service (specify)

([] Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

DEFENDANT 2
e Time Served Name Of Defendant
Clam (Jem

o By delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint.
LD By eaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
LD As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name And Address Of Person With Whom Copies Left (if corporation, give title of person copies left with)

LJ Other manner of service (specify)

Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

Service Fee Paid Signatupfl Dapu

Date Received Of type or print,

Date Of Retum
[s Coun
ve
Of herff

3115 2
AOC-CV-100, Side Two, Rev. 4/18
© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
DURHAM COUNTY CLERK GF COURT

2144270) DS/L/24 2: 58542

PAYOR: BALL
AYEE: COPIES
"ASER : VCAF IN

a COPY FEES 21.75

TOTAL PAID 21.75

A TENBERED 30.00
CHANGE 0.25

Ve Th CaLKSE
 PAID MAR06 2024 By,
I Pad 430 336003
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Durham
rp' 240VS1218
In The General Court Of Justice
County a District {x} Superior Court Division
Name Of Plaintiff
Monique Holsey-Hyman
~ 1
Address
CIVIL SUMMONS
c/o DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP, P.O. Box 71I
Gity, State, Zip
CAWAS AND PLURIES SUMMONS (ASSESS FEE)
NC 27602

ae
Raleigh
VERSUS G.S. 1A-1, Rules 3 and 4
Name Of Defendant(s) Date Original Summons Issued
Jarrod B, Edens, et al.
Date(s} Subsequent Summons(es) Issued

To Each Of The Defendant(s) Named Below:

Name And Address Of Defendant 1

Edens Investments, Inc. Alternate Address

c/o Registered Agent, Jarrod B. Edens 8414 Wheatstone Ln.
112 E, Main Street
Durham NC 27701 Raleigh NC 27613-1477

IMPORTANT! You have been sued! These papers are legal documents, DO NOT throw these papers out!
You have to respond within 30 days. You may want to talk with a lawyer about your case as soon as
possible, and, if needed, speak with someone who reads English and can translate these papers!
JIMPORTANTE! |Se ha entablado un proceso civil en su contra! Estos papeles son documentos legales.
jNO TIRE estos papeles!
Tiene que contestar a mas tardar en 30 dias. ;Puede querer consultar con un abogado lo antes posible
acerca de su caso y, de ser necesario, hablar con alguien que lea inglés y que pueda traducir estos
documentos!
A Civil Action Has Been Commenced Against You!
You are notified to appear and answer the complaint of the plaintiff as follows:
1. Serve a copy of your written answer to the complaint upon the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney within thirty (30) days after you have been
served. You may serve your answer by delivering a copy to the plaintiff or by mailing it to the plaintiff's fast known address, and
2. File the original of the written answer with the Clerk of Superior Court of the county named above.
If you fail to answer the complaint, the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Name And Address Of Plaintiff's Attomey (if none, Address Of Plaintiff) Date

James T. Johnson 5 be Y "3: SY Cam

(Yeu
DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP Signature,

P.O. Box 711

NC 27602
Raleigh Deputy CSC O Assistant CSC Chen Of Superior Court

Date Of Endorsement Time

[LJENDORSEMENT (ASSESS FEE) (Jam (Jem

This Summons was originally issued on the date indicated Signature
above and returned not served. At the request of the plaintiff,
the time within which this Summons must be served is
extended sixty (60) days. Deputy csc 0 Assistant CSC Clerk Of Supenor Court

NOTE TO PARTIES: Many counties have MANDATORY ARBITRATION programs in which most cases where the amount in controversy is $25,000 or
less are heard by an arbitrator before a trial, The parties will be notified if this case is assigned for mandatory arbitration, and, if
So, what procedure is to be followed.

(Over)
AOC-CV.100, Rev. 4/18
© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 @
RETURNOFSERVICE :

{ certify that this Summons and a copy of the complaint were received and served as follows:

DEFENDANT 1
Oate Served Time Served Name Of Defendant -

[am [Jem ENENS IN C/O

CJ By delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint.
o By leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name And Address Of Person With Whom Copies Left (if corporation, give litle of person copies left with)

0 Other manner of service (specity)

Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason: LAA}Q process, Address oN File
(SW NA CAN Budding. address is out oF
Cdety County DEFENDANT 2
Date Served Time Served Name Of Defendant
a g eM

By delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint.
By leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name And Address Of Person With Whom Copies Left (if corporation, give title of person copies left with)

Other manner of service (specify)

Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

Service Fee Paid

$
Date Received

Date Of Return
7
wt :

AC\
ame OFS

County Of Sheriff
ce
(type or prin)

richeq
124
AOC-CV- 100, Side Two, Rev. 4/18
© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
w
*
3
PAID MAR06 2024 ZS.
(Alw7B File No
VUAtBO 336003
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA o4CyS 1218
Durham In The General Court Of Justice
County O District x Superior Court Division
Name Of Plaintiff
my
Monique Holsey-Hyman :

Addross
CIVIL SUMMONS
c/o DeMent Askew Johnson
City, State, Zip
& Marshall, LLP, P.O, Box 711
'LIAS AND PLURIES SUMMONS (ASSESS FEE)

Raleigh INC 276020

VERSUS GS. 1A-1, Rules 3 and 4
Name Of Defendani(s) Date Original Summons Issued
Jarrod B. Edens, et al.
Date(s) Subsequent Summons(es) Issued

To Each Of The Defendant(s) Named Below:

Name And Address Of Defendant 1 Mame find Artdrace OF
Jillian N. Johnson, Individually and in her official capacity as a Alternate Address
member of the Durham City Council 101 City Hall Plaza
902 Arnette Ave.
Durham NC 27701-3109 Durham NC 27701

IMPORTANT! You have been sued! These papers are legal documents, DO NOT throw these papers out!
You have to respond within 30 days. You may want to talk with a lawyer about your case as soon as
possible, and, if needed, speak with someone who reads English and can translate these papers!
jIMPORTANTE! |Se ha entablado un proceso civil en su contral Estos papeles son documentos legales.
jNO TIRE estos papelesi
Tiene que contestar a mas tardar en 30 dias. ;Puede querer consultar con un abogado Io antes posible
acerca de su caso y, de ser necesario, hablar con alguien que lea inglés y que pueda traducir estos
documentos!
A Civil Action Has Been Commenced Against You!
You are notified to appear and answer the complaint of the plaintiff as follows:
1 Serve a copy of your written answer to the complaint upon the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney within thirty (30) days after you have been
served. You may serve your answer by delivering a copy to the plaintiff or by mailing it to the plaintiff's last known address, and
2. File the original of the written answer with the Clerk of Superior Court of tha county named above.

If you fail to answer the complaint, the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Name And Address Of Plaintiff's Attomey (if none, Address Of Plaintif) Date issu

James T, Johnson 2 "2°55 Oau PM

DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP Signature

P.O. Box 711

Raleigh NC 27602
Deputy CSC Assistant CSC Ces Superior Court

Date Of Endorsement Time

ENDORSEMENT (ASSESS FEE) Clam
This Summons was originally issued on the date indicated Signature
above and returned not served. At tha request of the plaintiff,
the time within which this Summons must be served is
extended sixty (60) days. Deputy csc [Assistant SC Clerk oF superior Court

NOTE TO PARTIES: Many counties have MANDATORY ARBITRATION programs in which most cases where the amount in controversy is $25,000 or
less are heard by an arbitrator before a trial. The parties will be notified if this case is assigned for mandatory arbitration, and, if
so, what procedure is to be followed.

(Over)
AOC-CV-100, Rev. 4/18
© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 @
:
ORETURNOF SERVICE. :

|
certify that this Summons and a copy of the complaint were received and served as follows:

DEFENDANT 1

Date Served : Time Served Name Defendant Of

AM (em

livering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint.
By leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dweiling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name And Address Of Person With Whom Copies Left (if corporation, give title of person copies left with)

Siegen Bandich
Other manner of service (specify)

Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

DEFENDANT 2
Date Served Time Served Name Of Defendant
(Jam Opm

By delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint.
C) By leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name And Address Of Person With Whom Copies Left (if corporation, give title of person copies left with)

Other manner of service (specify)

Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

f
Service Fee Paid Making Retum

Date Received f Sheriff (ty, or

Date Of Retum County OFShenff

7
2/2 U
AOC-CV-100, Side Two, Rev. 4/18
© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 PAID MAR06 2024 ZS.
$30 336003
™

File No
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 4Cys 1218
Durham In The General Court Of Justice
County :
District Superior Court Division
Name Of Plaintiff
Monique Holsey-Hyman
Address
CIVIL SUMMONS
c/o DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP, P.O. Box1
CIALIAS AND PLURIES SUMMONS (ASSESS FEE)
City, Slate, Zip
~
Raleigh nt 27602
VERSUS ry CH GS. 1A-1, Rules 3 and 4
Name Defendant(s)
Of Date-Original Summons issued
Jarrod B. Edens, et al.
Date(s} Subsequent Summons(es) Issued

To Each Of The Defendant(s) Named Below:

Name And Address Of Defendant 1 NememAadwvAddrass-OldDelendant 2
Sara M. Young, Individually and in her official capacity as Alternate Address
City of Durham Planning Director 101 City Hall Plaza
117 Beaconsfield Ct.
Durham NC 27703-6799 Durham NC 27701

IMPORTANT! You have been sued! These papers are legal documents, DO NOT throw these papers out!
You have to respond within 30 days. You may want to talk with a lawyer about your case as soon as
possible, and, if needed, speak with someone who reads English and can transiate these papers!
jIMPORTANTE! |Se ha entablado un proceso civil en su contral Estos papeles son documentos legales.
jNO TIRE estos papeles!
Tiene que contestar a mas tardar en 30 dias. ;Puede querer consultar con un abogado Io antes posible
acerca de su caso y, de ser necesario, hablar con alguien que lea inglés y que pueda traducir estos
documentos!
A Civil Action Has Been Commenced Against You!
You are notified to appear and answer the complaint of the plaintiff as follows:
1. Serve a copy of your written answer to the complaint upon the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney within thirty (30) days after you have been
served. You may serve your answer by delivering a copy to the plaintiff or by mailing it to the plaintiff's last known address, and
2. File the original of the written answer with the Clerk of Superior Court of the county named above.
If you fail to answer the complaint, the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Name And Address Of Plaintif's Attomey {if none, Address Of Plaintiff) Date! 5

Als [24
Ti3:

James T. Johnson Lam PM

DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshail, LLP SignatuCc

P.O. Box 711

Raleigh NC 27602
Depuycsc UT] Assistant csc Clerk Of Superior Court

Date Of Endorsement Time

ENDORSEMENT (ASSESS FEE) Law [Jem
This Summons was originally issued on the date indicated Signature
above and returned not served. At the request of the plaintiff,
the time within which this Summons must be served is
extended sixty (60) days. (lcepuycsc [JAssistantcsc ([] Clerk Of Superior Court

NOTE TO PARTIES: Many counties have MANDATORY ARBITRATION programs in which most cases where the amount in controversy Is $25,000 or
less are heard by an arbitrator before a trial. The parties will be notilied if this case is assigned for mandatory arbitration, and if
so, what procedure is to be followed.

(Over)
AQC-CV-100, Rev. 4/18
© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 : :

RETURN SERVICE :
:

|
certify that this Summons and a copy of the complaint were received and served as follows:

DEFENDANT 1

Date Served Time Served Of Defendant

3 V\24
By delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint
{] By teaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name And Adgress Of Person With Whom Copies Left (if corporation, give lille of person copies left with)

Other manner of service (specify)

Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

DEFENDANT 2
Date Served Time Served Name Of Defendant
Clam (Jem

(] By delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint.
By leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
C As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name And Address Of Person With Whom Copies Left (if corporation, give title of person copies ieft vith)

Other manner of service (specify)

Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

Ag

Oc1
Service Fee Paid Signage Of Oafyft She

als
Date Received Aff (type or print}

Date Of Retum
2
: County Of Shenff
er rhe
2 :

chem
AOC-CV-100, Side Two, Rev. 4/18
© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 PAID MRosm
1210078 Pad 830 336003
24CVS 1218
File No
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Durham In The General Court Of Justice
County ODistrict x Superior Court Division
Name Of Plaintiff
Monique Holsey-Ilyman
Address
CIVIL SUMMONS
c/o DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP, P.O. Box 7} 1

CIALIAS AND PLURIES SUMMONS (ASSESS FEE)

Cily, State, Zip
Raleigh NC 27682
VERSUS PAY GS. 1A-1, Rules 3 and 4
Name Of Defendani(s) Date Original Summons Issued
Jarrod B. Edens, et al.
Date(s) Subsequent Summons(es) Issued

To Each Of The Defendant(s) Named Below:

Name And Address Of Defendant 1

Mark A. Middleton, Individually and in his official capacity as a Alternate Address

member of the Durham City Council and Mayor Pro Tempore tO! City Hall Plaza
3018 Appling Way
Durham NC 27703-9276 Durham NC 27701

IMPORTANT! You have been sued! These papers are legal documents, DO NOT throw these papers out!
You have to respond within 30 days. You may want to talk with a lawyer about your case as soon as
possible, and, if needed, speak with someone who reads English and can translate these papers!
J IMPORTANTE! |Se ha entablado un proceso civil en su contra! Estos papeles son documentos legales
jNO TIRE estos papeles!
Tiene que contestar a mas tardar en 30 dias. jPuede querer consultar con un abogado lo antes posible
acerca de su caso y, de ser necesario, hablar con alguien que lea inglés y que pueda traducir estos
documentos!
A Civil Action Has Been Commenced Against You!
You are notified to appear and answer the complaint of the plaintiff as follows:
1. Serve a copy of your written answer to the complaint upon the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney within thirty (30) days after you have been
served. You may serve your answer by delivering a copy to the plaintiff or by mailing it to the plaintiff's last known address, and
2. File the original of the written answer with the Clerk of Superior Court of the county named above.
If you fail to answer the complaint, the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the complaint.

Name And Address Of Plaintiff's Attomey (if none, Address Of Date issued

James T. Johnson 6/12 "2 55 Clam Deu

DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP
P.O. Box 711
Raleigh NC 27602
Deputy CSC a Assistont CSC O Of Superior Court

Date Of Endorsement Time

o ENDORSEMENT (ASSESS FEE) Clam (jem

This Summons was originally issued on the date indicated Signature
above and returned not served. At the request of the plaintiff,
the time within which this Summons must be served is
extended sixty (60) days. (] Deputy csc [Assistant csc Clerk of Superior Court

NOTE TO PARTIES: Many counties have MANDATORY ARBITRATION programs in which most cases where the amount in controversy is $25,000 or
less are heard by an arbitrator before a trial, The parties will be notified if this case is assigned for mandatory arbitration, and if
So, what procedure Is to be followed.

(Over)
AQC-CV-100, Rev. 4/18
© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 a :
RETURNOF SERVICE
|
certify that this Summons and a copy of the complaint were received and served as follows:

DEFENDANT 1

Date Served Time Served Name {Defendant

delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint.
By leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
C1 As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and compiaint to the person named
below.
Name And Address Of Person With Whom Copies Left (if corporation, give title of person copies left with)

(J Other manner of service (specify

[[] Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

DEFENDANT 2
Date Served Time Served Name Of Defendant
[Jam (Jem

By delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint.
By leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name And Address Of Person With Whom Copies Left (if corporation, give title of person copies left with)

Other manner of service (specify)

OC Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

Ag

045
Service Fee Paid Signati f Dapy,
$ :

Date Rceivd or or print)

Date Of Retum : County or Sheriff

AOC-CV-100, Side Two, Rev. 4/18

© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 PAID MAR 06 2024

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA per? 4UVS

Durham In The General Court Of Justice
County :
District [XK] Superior Court Division
Name Of Plaintiff

Monique Holsey-Hyman
:
Address
CIVIL SUMMONS
c/o DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP, P.O. Box 711
LJ) ALIAS AND PLURIES SUMMONS (ASSESS FEE)
City, State, Zip
:

NC 27602
Raleigh
VERSUS CM GS. 1A-1, Rules 3 and 4

Name Of Defendant(s) Date Original Summons Issued

Jarrod B, Edens, et al.
Date(s) Subsequent Summons(es) Issued

To Each Of The Defendant(s) Named Below:

Name And Adaress Of Defendant 1 Defendant 2

Kimberly M. Rehberg, Individually and in her official capacity as Alternate Address

the City Attorney for Durham 101 City Hall Plaza
8306 Rue Cassini Ct.
Raleigh NC 27615-3360 Durham NC 27701

IMPORTANT! You have been sued! These papers are legal documents, DO NOT throw these papers out!
You have to respond within 30 days. You may want to talk with a lawyer about your case as soon as
possible, and, if needed, speak with someone who reads English and can translate these papers!
jIMPORTANTE! ;Se ha entablado un proceso civil en su contral Estos papeles son documentos legales.
jNO TIRE estos papeles!
Tiene que contestar a mas tardar en 30 dias. jPuede querer consultar con un abogado lo antes posible
acerca de su caso y, de ser necesario, hablar con alguien que lea inglés y que pueda traducir estos
documentos!
A Civil Action Has Been Commenced Against You!
You are notified to appear and answer the complaint of the plaintiff as follows:
1. Serve a copy of your written answer to the complaint upon the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney within thirty (30) days after you have been
served, You may serve your answer by delivering a copy to the plaintiff or by mailing it to the plaintiff's last known address, and
2. File the original of the written answer with the Clerk of Superior Court of the county named above.

(f you fail to answer the complaint, the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Name And Address Of Plaintiff's Attomey (if none, Address Of Plaintif) Oate Issuad r Time

James T. Johnson 3 5 PM

DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP Signatu

P.O. Box 711

Raleigh NC 27602 Assistant CSC
Deputy CSC rh Of Superior Court

Date Of Endorsement Time

(J ENDORSEMENT (ASSESS FEE) [Jam [Jem

This Summons was originally issued on the date indicated Signature
above and returned not served. At the request of the plaintiff,
the time within which this Summons must be served is
extended sixty (60) days. []oepuycsc [JAssistentcsc Crerk OF Superior Court

NOTE TO PARTIES: Many counties have MANDATORYARBITRATION programs in which most cases where the amount in controversy Is $25,000 or
less are heard by an arbitrator before a trial. The parties will be notified if this case is assigned for mandatory arbitration, and, if
So, what procedure Is to be followed.

(Over)
AOC-CV-100, Rev. 4/18
© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts

(19,
 @
RETURNOFSERVICE
: : : :
: :
:
: ::

|
certify that this Summons and a copy of the compiaint were received and served as follows:

DEFENDANT 1

Date Served Time Served Name

2 3100
[WY delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint
By teaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name Andd Address Of Parson Wilh Whom Copies Left (if corporation, give litle of person copies left with)

(J Other manner of service (specify)

Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

DEFENDANT 2
Date Served Time Served Name Of Defendant
(Cam [pm
By delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint.
C By leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Namo And Address Of Person With Whom Copies Lei (if corporation, give tile of person copies left with}

Other manner of service (specify)

Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

Service Fee Paid arm

VA
$
Date (type or print)
' ?
©.
1
:
2 e
Date Of Retum Co Of Sheriff

2 : ucham
AOQ-CV-100, Side Two, Rev. 4/18
© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 Ai Dwrosm
078 File No
UA $30 33603
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 24CV512
Durham tn The General Court Of Justice
County District Superior Court Division
Name Of Paintiff
Monique Holsey-Hyman
Address
CIvIL'SUMMONS
c/o DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP, P.O. Box 711
OALIAS AND PLURIES SUMMONS (ASSESS FEE)
City, Stata, Zip
Raleigh NC 27602
VERSUS G.S. 1A-1, Rules 3 and 4

Name Of Defendani(s) Date Original Summons Issued

Jarrod B. Edens, et al.
Date(s) Subsequent Summons(es) issued

To Each Of The Defendant(s) Named Below:

Name And Address Of Defendant 1 Name And Address Of 2
City of Durham
c/o City Manager, Wanda Page
101 City Hall Plaza
Durham NC 27701

IMPORTANT! You have been sued! These papers are legal documents, DO NOT throw these papers out!
You have to respond within 30 days. You may want to talk with a lawyer about your case as soon as
possible, and, if needed, speak with someone who reads English and can translate these papers!
jIMPORTANTE! jSe ha entablado un proceso civil en su contra! Estos papeles son documentos legales.
jNO TIRE estos papeles!
Tiene que contestar a mas tardar en 30 dias. jPuede querer consultar con un abogado [o antes posible
acerca de su caso y, de ser necesario, hablar con alguien que lea inglés y que pueda traducir estos
documentos!)
A Civil Action Has Been Commenced Against You!
You are notified to appear and answer the complaint of the plaintiff as follows:
1 Serve a copy of your written answer to the complaint upon the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney within thirty (30) days after you have been
served. You may serve your answer by delivering a copy to the plaintiff or by mailing it to the plaintiff's last known address, and
2. File the original of the written answer with the Clerk of Superior Court of the county named above.
tf you fail to answer the complaint, the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Name And Address Of Plaintiff's Atomey (if none, Address Of Plaintif) Date Iss

James T. Johnson 2 "BS S(y (Clam

Rew
DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP Signature

P.O. Box 711

Raleigh NC 27602
Depuly cse Assistant CSC Superior Court

Date Of Endorsement Time

(J ENDORSEMENT (ASSESS FEE) Oam [Jem

This Summons was originally issued on the date indicated Signature
above and returned not served. At the request of the plaintiff,
the time within which this Summons must be served is
extended sixty (60) days.
O ceputy csc [J Assistant csc LJ Cher of Superior Court
NOTE TO PARTIES: Many counties have MANDATORY ARBITRATION programs in which most cases where the amount in controversy is $25,000 or
less are heard by an arbitrator before a trial. The parties will be notified if this case Is assigned for mandatory arbitration, and, if
$o, what procedure Is to be followed.

(Over)
AOC-CV-100, Rev. 4/18
© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 : :

CRETURNOFSERVICE. : : :
:

|
certify that this Summons and a copy of the complaint were received and served as follows:

DEFENDANT 1

Date Served Time Served Name Of Defendant

(Jam Wiand
delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint
By leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name And Address Of Person With Whom Copies Left (if corporation, give fille of parson copies fefl with)

(LJ Other manner of service (specify)

Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

DEFENDANT 2
Date Served Time Served Name Of Defendant
(jam OPm

o By delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint.
C By leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
As the defendant is 2 corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name And Address OI Person With Whom Copies Left (if corporation, give title of person copies left with)

Other manner of service (specify)

Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

Service Fee Paid 7 Signatffe Of De

$ 2:2iHd 8- UY
Date Received Shg6M (type or print)

Date Of Refum
S\5(2 Ore
County Of Sheriff

Durham
é

211 2
AOC-CV-100, Side Two, Rev. 4/18
© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 File No
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 24CVS { 2 1 8
Durham The General Court Of Justice
In
County CJ District x Superior Court Division
Name And Address Of Plaintiff 1

Monique Holsey-Hyman
c/o DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP
P.O. Box 711 GENERAL
Raleigh NC_ 27602 CIVIL ACTION COVER SHEET
Name And Address Of Plaintiff 2
[XJ INITIAL FILING o SUBSEQUENT FILING
Can Rule 5(b) of the General Rules of Practice for the Superior and District Courts
Name And Address Of Attomey Or Party, if Not Represented
VERSUS (complete for initial appearance or change of address)
Name And Address Of Defendant 1
James T. Johnson
Jarrod B. Edens
DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP
8414 Wheatstone Ln.
P.O. Box 711
Raleigh NC 27602
Raleigh NC 27613-1477
Cellular Telephone No
Telephone No.
Summons Submitted
919-833-5555 919-981-9917
[x] Yes NC Altomey Bar No. Attomey Email Address
19087 [email protected]
Name And Address Of Defendant 2
Edens Investments, Inc.
[X] Initial Appearance in Case [[]Change of Address
112E.Main Street
Name Of Firm Fax No
DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall 919-832-8287
Durham NC 27701
Counsel For
Summons Submitted
[X] All Plaintiffs [(]All Defendants O Only: (list party(ies) represented)
[X] Yes oNo

[X] Jury Demanded In Pleading oComplex Litigation C] Stipulate to Arbitration

TYPE OF PLEADING
(check ail that apply)
Amend (AMND) Faiture To State A Claim (FASC)
(] Amended Answer/Reply (AMND-Response) [] tmplementation Of Wage Withholding In Non-IV-D Cases (OTHR)
Amended Complaint (AMND) improper Venue/Division (IMVN)
(] Assess Costs (COST) O including Attorneys Fees (ATTY)
Answer/Reply (ANSW-Response) (see Note) intervene (INTR)
Change Venue (CHVN) [] Interplead (OTHR)
x Complaint (COMP) [] Lack Of Jurisdiction (Person) (LUPN)
Confession Of Judgment (CNFJ) [] Lack Of Jurisdiction (Subject Matter) (LUSM)
Consent Order (CONS) Modification Of Child Support in IV-D Actions (MSUP)
Consolidate (CNSL) Notice Of Dismissal With Or Without Prejudice (VOLD)
Contempt (CNTP) [] Petition To Sue As indigent (OTHR)
[] Continue (CNTN) Rute 12 Motion Lieu Of Answer (MDLA)
In

[] Compe! (CMPL) (] Sanctions (SANC)

(] Counterclaim (CTCL) Assess Court Costs (] Set Aside (OTHR)
[}crossclaim (list on back) (CRSS) Assess Court Costs Show Cause (SHOW)
Dismiss (DISM) Assess Court Costs C Transfer (TRFR)
ExemptWaive Mediation (EXMD) (] Third Party Complaint (list Third Party Defendants on back) (TPCL)
Extend Statute Of Limitations, Rute 9 (ESOL) ([] Vacate/Modify Judgment (VCMD)
Extend Time For Complaint (EXCO) o Withdraw As Counsel (WDCN)
Failure To Join Necessary Party (FJNP) Other (specify and list each separately)

NOTE: Ail filings in civil actions shall include as the first page of the filing a cover sheet summarizing the critical elements of the filing in a format prescribed by
the Administrative Office of the Courts, and the Clerk of Superior Court shall require a party to refile a filing which does not include the required cover
sheet. For subsequent filings in civil actions, the filing party must include either a General Civil (AOC-CV-751), Motion (AOC-CV-752), or Court Action
(AOC-CV-753) cover sheet.
(Over)
AOC-CV-751. Rev. 3/19. © 2019 Administrative Office of the Courts
 Y CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Cvs 121
O Administrative Appeal (ADMA) (] Limited Driving Privilege -
Out-Of-State J Product Liability (PROD)
(] Appointment Of Receiver (APRC) Convictions (PLDP) (J Real Property (RLPR)
o Attachment/Garnishment (ATTC) (] Medical! Malpractice (MDML) J Specific Performance (SPPR)
O Claim And Delivery (CLMD) [_] Minor Settlement (MSTL) [X] Other (specify and list each separately)
[] Collection On Account (ACCT) O Money Owed (MNYO) Slander per se, Libel per se, Libel per
O Condemnation (CNDM) [] Negligence Motor Vehicle (MVNG)
- quod, Violation of First Amendment
Right to Free Speech, Civil Conspiracy,
{_] Contract (CNTR) o Negligence Other (NEGO)
-

Intentional or Negligent Infliction of

O Discovery Scheduling Order (DSCH) [] Motor Vehicle Lien G.S. Chapter 44A (MVLN)
Emotional Distress, Breach of Fiduciary
(J injunction (INJU) [] Possession Of Personal Property (POPP) DutytA /Punitive Damages
Date Signature Of Attomey/P
03/05/2024

FEES IN G.S. 7A-308 APPLY

Assert Right Of Access (ARAS)
Substitution Of Trustee (Judicial Foreclosure) (RSOT)
Supplemental Procedures (SUPR)
PRO HAC VICE FEES APPLY
Motion For Out-Of-State Attorney To Appear In NC Courts In A Civil Or Criminal Matter (Out-Of-State Attorney/Pro Hac Vice Fee)

No. Additional Plaintiff(s)

Summons
No. [x] Additional Defendant(s) O Third Party Defendant(s) Submitted

3 Jillian N. Johnson, 902 Arnette Ave., Durham, NC 27701-3109 [x] Yes CO No

4 Kimberly M. Rehberg, 8306 Rue Cassini Ct., Raleigh, NC 27615-3360 [X] ves (no
5 Sara M. Young, 117 Beaconsfield Ct., Durham, NC 27703-6799 [X] ves O No
6 Mark A. Middleton, 3018 Appling Way, Durham, NC 27703-9276 x yes [No
7 City of Durham, c/o City Manager, Wanda Page, 101 City Hall Plaza, Durham, NC 27701 x Yes [Jno
Plaintiff(s) Against Whom Counterclaim Asserted

Defendant(s) Against Whom Crossciaim Asserted

AOC-CV-751, Side Two, Rev. 3/19

© 2019 Administrative Office of the Courts
a

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA : IN GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

"=<? SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

DURHAM COUNTY
YUAN -S D2:
FILE NO
5¢
2 4 C VS12 1 8

MONIQUE HOLSEY-HYMAN, :
:

C.50
Plaintiff,
Cm
V.

JARROD B. EDENS, EDENS COMPLAINT

INVESTMENTS, INC., SARA M.
YOUNG, Individually and in her official
capacity as City of Durham Planning
Director, KIMBERLY M. REHBERG,
Individually and in her official capacity as
City Attorney for Durham, JILLIAN N.
JOHNSON, Individually and in her official
capacity as member of the Durham City
a

Council, MARK A. MIDDLETON,

Individually and in his official capacity as a
member of the Durham City Council and
Mayor Pro Tempore, and THE CITY OF
DURHAM, a Municipal Corporation.

Defendants.

NOW COMES Plaintiff Monique Holsey-Hyman and complaining of Defendants, alleges

and says as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Monique Holsey-Hyman ("Plaintiff' or "Dr. Holsey-Hyman") is a citizen

and resident of Durham, Durham County, North Carolina. At all times alleged herein, Dr. Holsey-

Hyman was a member of the Durham City Council.

2. Jarrod B. Edens (''Mr. Edens") is a citizen and resident of Raleigh, Wake County,

North Carolina.
 v o4cvs1218
3. Edens Investments, Inc. ("Edens Investments") is a corporation duly organized and

existing under the laws of the state of North Carolina. Jarrod Edens is the manager, owner, and

operator of Edens Investments. At all times alleged herein, Jarrod Edens and Edens Investments

owned and managed numerous large real property developments in Durham County and the

surrounding areas.

4. Sara M. Young ("Ms. Young") is a citizen and resident of Durham, Durham

County, North Carolina. At all times alleged herein, Ms. Young was employed by the City of

Durham, North Carolina as the City Planning Director. At all times relevant to the events described

in this Complaint, Ms. Young was acting within the course and scope of her official duties and

under color of state law. Ms. Young is both individually and in her official capacity responsible

for the constitutional violations and torts that are alleged herein. This Complaint is brought against

Ms. Young in her individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and in her individual and official

capacities under North Carolina Law.

5. Kimberly M. Rehberg (""Ms. Rehberg") is a citizen and resident of Raleigh, Wake

County, North Carolina. At all times alleged herein, Ms. Rehberg was employed by the City of

Durham, North Carolina as the City Attorney. At all times relevant to the events described in this

Complaint, Ms. Rehberg was acting within the course and scope of her official duties and under

color of state law. Ms. Rehberg is both individually and in her official capacity responsible for

the constitutional violations and torts that are alleged herein. This Complaint is brought against

Ms. Rehberg in her individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and in her individual and official

capacities under North Carolina Law.

6. Jillian N. Johnson ("Ms. Johnson") is a citizen and resident of Durham, Durham

County, North Carolina. At all times alleged herein, Ms. Johnson was employed by the City of

Durham, North Carolina as a member of the Durham City Council. At all times relevant to the

2
 @
24CV¥S1218
events described in this Complaint, Ms. Johnson was acting within the course and scope of her

official duties and under color of state law. Ms. Johnson is both individually and in her official

capacity responsible for the constitutional violations and torts that are alleged herein. This

Complaint is brought against Ms. Johnson in her individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

in her individual and official capacities under North Carolina Law.

7. Mark A. Middleton ("Mr. Middleton") is a citizen and resident of Durham, Durham

County, North Carolina. At all times alleged herein, Mr. Middleton was employed by the City of

Durham, North Carolina as a member of the Durham City Council and as Mayor Pro Tempore. At

all times relevant to the events described in this Complaint, Mr. Middleton was acting within the

course and scope of his official duties and under color of state law. Mr. Middleton is both

individually and in his official capacity responsible for the constitutional violations and torts that

are alleged herein. This Complaint is brought against Mr. Middleton in his individual capacity

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and in his individual and official capacities under North Carolina Law.

8. The City of Durham, North Carolina ("City") is a municipal corporation chartered

and organized under the laws and Constitution of the State of North Carolina. It is capable under

the law of bringing and defending lawsuits, including claims by and against its employees, agents,

attorneys, and councilmembers.

9. The City of Durham is located in Durham County, North Carolina.

10. As a North Carolina municipal corporation, the City of Durham is vested with all

of the corporate rights, powers, and capacities that are set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-11,

including but not limited to, the powers and capacities to sue and be sued.

11. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-146, the Durham City Manager is responsible

for administering the city's municipal affairs. The Durham City Manager is appointed by and

serves at the pleasure of the Durham City Council.

3
 Y
24CVS1218
12. Among the many powers of the Durham City Manager are the powers and duties

to direct and supervise the administration of all city departments and offices, including the

Planning Department and the City Attorney's Office.

13. The Durham City Council is the legislative body for the City of Durham. Its

members are the community's decision makers. The City's power is centralized in the elected

council members. The City Council can hire and fire the city manager, sets the budget, and makes

all planning, traffic, law and order, public works, finance and recreation decisions. It can levy

taxes, collect revenues and make appropriations. It can hire and fire the City Attorney and the City

Planning Director. In effect, the City Council is the City.

14. The City Planning Director, the City Attorney, and all members of City Council are

agents and employees of the City of Durham.

15. At all times alleged herein and at all other times relevant to this action, the City of

Durham either acted or failed to act, as alleged herein, through its officials, managers,

policymakers, and/or employees-including, but not limited to the City Planning Director, the City

Attorney, and the City Council members whose acts, edicts, and practices represent the official

policies, practices, and customs of the City of Durham.

16. Further, City Council members are supervisors, officers, managers, and final

policymakers. Their actions are the actions of the City of Durham. The City of Durham is also

liable for the injuries and damages resulting from the actions/inactions of the City Council member

Defendants alleged herein because as final policymakers for the City of Durham, they were

themselves the direct participants and inflictors of the deprivation of Dr. Holsey-Hyman's

constitutionally protected rights.

4
 e @
24C VS 1218
17. The City of Durham is liable for the injuries and damages resulting from the actions

of the Planning Director and City Attorney Defendants because their actions/inactions alleged

herein were ratified by the City Manager and/or the City Council member Defendants.

18. The City of Durham is responsible for Dr. Holsey-Hyman's injuries and damages

under 42 USC § 1983 because its official policies, practices, customs, and/or usages wrongfully

caused Dr. Holsey-Hyman's injuries and losses. The City of Durham is also liable for the

constitutional violations alleged herein in that it ratified and adopted the wrongful actions and

practices of the City Planning Director, City Attorney, and the City Council members alleged

herein. The City of Durham is also liable in this action both for direct negligence, and for the

defamatory and other tortious conduct of its agents, servants, and employees under the theories of

agency, vicarious liability, and respondeat superior.

WAIVER OF IMMUNITY
19. Upon information and belief, the governmental Defendants do not have

governmental or sovereign immunity for any of the acts or omissions that are described herein.

20. In the alternative, should any of the governmental Defendants ordinarily possess

governmental and/or sovereign immunity from civil liability for any of the acts or omissions that

are described herein, upon information and belief, the governmental Defendants are insured by

one or more policies of liability insurance purchased pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-435, §

160A-485, or other applicable state law with respect to all acts and omissions complained of

herein, or participate in a government risk pool pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-23-5, or maintain

a funded reserve and to such extent, the governmental Defendants have waived any official,

sovereign, qualified or governmental immunity to which they might otherwise be entitled in their

official capacities.

5
 21. In committing the acts and omissions that are alleged herein, the governmental

Defendants acted knowingly, maliciously, corruptly, and with a callous and reckless disregard for

the rights of Dr. Holsey-Hyman, all of which justifies the imposition of personal liability for the

wrongful acts alleged herein, as well as an award of punitive damages against them in their

individual capacity.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

22. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under and by virtue of,

inter alia, N.C.G.S. § 7A-240 and N.C.G.S. § 7A-243 and N.C.GS § 1-253 et seq.

23. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants under and by virtue of, inter

alia, N.C.G.S. §1-75.4.

24. Venue is proper in this Court under by virtue of, inter alia, N.C.G.S. §1-79 and §1-

82.

FACTS

I. Background.

25. Dr. Holsey-Hyman was born and raised in South Bronx, New York. She received

her Bachelor of Sciences degree in Human Services and Sociology from State University at

Binghamton in 1986. She received a Masters of Social Work from Columbia University in 1992,

and she received a Doctorate in Education Leadership and Administration from Walden University

in 2015.

26. Dr. Holsey-Hyman is a wife, mother, and community activist passionate about

education, social work, and community service. Over the past 25 years, Dr. Holsey-Hyman has

worked in child welfare, mental health, and community healthcare and management, with 17 years

of administrative and academic leadership. She has worked and taught at numerous distinguished

institutions, including Berkeley College in New York, Fordham University and Columbia

6
 a
24Cv51218
University in New York City, Shaw University in Raleigh, Simmons University in Boston, Walden

University in Minnesota, and North Carolina Central University in Durham.

27. Since 2006, she has lived in Durham. She worked at Shaw University in various

capacities from 2006 to 2018. Since 2018, she has worked as a professor at N.C. Central

University. During this time, she has also worked remotely as an adjunct professor at Simmons

University.

28. Dr. Holsey-Hyman has received numerous different awards and accommodations

throughout her distinguished career. Just during the time that she has been at N.C. Central

University, Dr. Holsey-Hyman has received the 2019 Crystal Eagle Excellence Award for

outstanding social work faculty, the 2021 N.C. Central University Excellence in Teaching and

Mentoring Student Success Award, the 2022 N.C. Central University Department of Social Work

Innovative Mentoring Award, and the 2022 N.C. Central University College of Arts, Social

Sciences, and Humanities Social Work Department Excellence in Teaching Award. She has

received and been nominated for many other awards and accommodations.

29. Dr. Holsey-Hyman has been appointed to numerous different education, healthcare,

and community service boards and committees everywhere she has lived.

30. Dr. Holsey-Hyman has authored or co-authored numerous publications covering

black history, education, social work, and civil rights.

31. Apart from her family, which is most important to her, Dr. Holsey-Hyman is, first

and foremost, an educator and passionate social worker. Her career accomplishments speak for

themselves. At all times alleged herein, each and every Defendant named in this lawsuit was fully

aware of Dr. Holsey-Hyman's distinguished background and her career accomplishments.

7
 24C0V5 1218
32. In early 2022, Dr. Holsey-Hyman was approached by colleagues to consider

applying for the open seat on the Durham City Council ("Council") left vacant by the resignation

of Council Member Charlie Reece.

33. Dr. Holsey-Hyman had never held a political office, and she had never previously

run for political office. However, she has rarely said no to any meaningful opportunity to serve or

give back to her community. Dr. Holsey-Hyman had grown to truly love the community of

Durham. The idea of serving on the Durham City Council and being able to reach and impact a

wider range of people with her "education first" message was appealing to her. So, Dr. Holsey-

Hyman agreed and submitted her application as a candidate for the Durham City Council.

34. Dr. Holsey-Hyman was unanimously chosen among the existing council members,

and on May 12, 2022, Dr. Holsey-Hyman was sworn in as the newest Durham City Council

member.

35. As referenced above, Dr. Holsey-Hyman's background is in education, healthcare,

and social work. A large percentage of the work performed by the Council is related to property

management/development issues. Dr. Holsey-Hyman was not as familiar with property issues as

she was with the education and social work issues that came before the Council. She relied on her

fellow council members to provide her some background knowledge and guidance as to the various

property issues the Council routinely dealt with.

36. Fairly quickly, Dr. Holsey-Hyman learned that there was a group of four council

members that routinely voted for development regardless of the potential adverse impact to the

people of Durham Defendant Mayor Pro Tempore Mark Middleton, Defendant Jillian Johnson,

Leonardo Williams, and Javiera Caballero.

37. The other two council members, Mayor Elaine O'Neal and DeDreana Freeman,

frequently voted against large development projects.

8
 24CVS1218
38. With each development project that came before the Council, Dr. Holsey-Hyman

tried to understand the reasons for development, the need for the development, and the impact the

development was going to have on the existing community. She often voted no for development

projects, but her vote was not a rubber stamp either way. She took each development issue that

came before the Council one-by-one.

39. Dr. Holsey-Hyman began to see that Council members Middleton, Williams,

Johnson, and Caballero (which were referred to within City staff and which are hereinafter

sometimes referred to as "the group of four") were very close with the builders and developers that

came before the Council. They frequently had individual meetings and lunches together. On

several occasions, Council member Williams told Dr. Holsey-Hyman that she was voting too

passionately and that she needed to vote more "politically" in favor of building if she wanted to

stay on the council.

40. Upon information and belief, when Council members Williams and Middleton

were first elected to the City Council, they ran on anti-development platforms; however, after they

were on the Council and after they had meetings with the different developers, they started

supporting development.

41. The developers and builders that frequently came before the Council also had close

relationships with other City staff members, specifically the City Planning Director, Defendant

Sara Young.

42. The Planning Director's department was intended to serve as a gatekeeper for

development projects brought before the Council; however, in recent years, the Planning Director

seemed to be controlled by the private builders and developers. Upon information and belief, it

was difficult for anyone to get an appointment with Ms. Young except for the big-name developers.

In fact, some recently proposed changes to the City's development codes and zoning regulations
9
 @ nacvS 1218
that the Planning Director had submitted or was in the process of submitting to the Council had in

fact been drafted by local developers and builders.!

43. Upon information and belief (especially given her subsequent actions described

herein) the City Attorney, Defendant Rehberg, had grown familiar with and was supportive of

developers that came before the Council."

44. There was a growing sense of arrogance among the group of four, along with Ms.

Young and Ms. Rehberg, that development plans brought before the Council should be approved

and that fellow council members that voted against development plans brought before the Council

either did not know enough about the issue, were voting purely on passion, or just should not be

on the Council.

Il. The March 6, 2023 City Council Meeting.

45. The City Council was scheduled to have a public meeting on the evening of

Monday, March 6, 2023.

46. On the agenda for the March 6, 2023 meeting was a request for a utility extension

agreement, voluntary annexation and zoning map change submitted by Defendants Jarrod Edens

and Edens Investments for one parcel of land totaling approximately 132 acres located at 2621

Burton Road and commonly known as the Carpenter Falls Development. (Hereinafter referred to

as the "Carpenter Falls Development" or "Carpenter Falls Annexation").

47. Mr. Edens and Edens Investments stated in their application that they intended to

develop the property as a 235 single-family unit subdivision.

'
The Durham Simplified Code for Affordable Housing (SCAD) had primarily been drafted by the
attorneys/engineers of local developers.
Upon information and belief, Ms. Rehberg had also recently requested a raise and/or promotion that
2

Council member Middleton and some of the other group of four supported, while Mayor O'Neal and
Council members Freeman and Holsey-Hyman did not. So, Ms. Rehberg was upset and/or frustrated with
Dr. Holsey-Hyman for her own financial reasons.

10
 @ @
24CV51218
48. A majority of the Council had to vote for the annexation in order for it to be

approved. If the Carpenter Falls Annexation were to be approved, upon information and belief,

Mr. Edens and Edens Investments were going to sell the property to another developer who would

then immediately start work on grading and developing the property.

49. If the Carpenter Falls Annexation did not pass, then Mr. Edens and Edens

Investments would not be able to sell the property. Mr. Edens and Edens Investments stood to

lose a significant amount of money if the annexation was not approved by a majority of the

Council.

50. As previously referenced, the group of four-Council members Middleton,

Williams, Johnson, and Caballero were supportive of development. They were all aware of the

Carpenter Falls Annexation and were very anxious to push the annexation forward. The other

Council members, Mayor O'Neal, Freeman, and Holsey-Hyman, all felt that they needed more

time to look at the development more closely and wanted more time. They did not understand the

rush.

51. Upon information and belief, Mr. Edens had previously contacted, directly and/or

indirectly, the group of four and had confirmed that all four were supportive of the Carpenter Falls

Annexation. Mr. Edens was confident that if all four of the group of four were to come to the

meeting, the annexation would pass.

52. Shortly before the March 6, 2023 City Council meeting, it became known that

Council member Johnson would not be present at the meeting. If the vote on the annexation were

to end in a 3-3 tie, then the annexation would not pass.

53. Mr. Edens was made aware of the fact that Council member Johnson was not going

to be present at the meeting.

1]
 24CVS 1218
54. Mr. Edens needed one more vote. He knew that Mayor O'Neal and Council

member Freeman were not going to be swayed.

55. Upon information and belief, one or more of the group of four advised Mr. Edens

to contact Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

56. Onthe morning of March 6, Mr. Edens tried to contact Dr. Holsey-Hyman. He sent

her emails and left voicemail messages. However, Dr. Holsey-Hyman had a full day of meetings

and conference calls. Her schedule was full. Because her schedule was full, and she was busy

going from meeting to meeting, she was not aware that Mr. Edens was trying to contact her.

57. Dr. Holsey-Hyman shared the same administrative assistant with Council member

Williams, Rachel Ruterbories.

58. Ms. Ruterbories was made aware, either by Council member Williams or by Mr.

Edens, that Mr. Edens was trying to contact Dr. Holsey-Hyman before that night's Council

meeting.

59. Around mid-morning on the 6", Ms. Ruterbories called Dr. Holsey-Hyman and told

her that Mr. Edens was trying to get up with her. Ms. Ruterbories asked her to please call Mr.

Edens between her 11:00 am and 1:00 pm meetings.

60. Dr. Holsey-Hyman called Mr. Edens around 12:00 noon on the 6". She informed

Mr. Edens that she was very busy working on Council matters and on a project at N.C. Central

University. She also informed Mr. Edens that she had just recently decided to run for reelection

on the City Council and that her kickoff event was going to be that weekend, March 12.

61. Mr. Edens stated that he wanted to support Dr. Holsey-Hyman in her endeavors of

running for City Council. Dr. Holsey-Hyman responded jokingly that she did not think he could

support her because she did not want to go to jail. She then laughed, and so did Mr. Edens.

12
 e 24CV51218
62. Mr. Edens then talked about the fact that he sponsored a football team with many

African American boys and that he thought that the parents and children would be able to support

Dr. Holsey-Hyman at her kickoff event coming up on the 12". Mr. Edens also asked Dr. Holsey-

Hyman to speak at his football team's awards banquet.

63. Mr. Edens then brought up the Carpenter Falls Annexation that was going to be

before the Council later that evening. Dr. Holsey-Hyman asked him questions about blasting, how

many units there were going to be in the development, and whether there were going to be any

affordable housing or other proffers made to the City in his proposal. Mr. Edens never asked Dr.

Holsey-Hyman to vote a certain way on the annexation proposal. Dr. Holsey-Hyman never stated

she was going to vote a certain way on the annexation proposal. Dr. Holsey-Hyman never implied

she was going to vote a certain way on the annexation. She absolutely never stated or implied she

would vote yes for the annexation in exchange for any contribution or other favors from Mr. Edens.

Dr. Holsey-Hyman made contemporaneous notes of her conversation with Mr. Edens.

64. After the call ended, Dr. Holsey-Hyman texted Mr. Edens the announcement for

her campaign and the upcoming March 12, 2023 kickoff event.

65. At the City Council meeting later that evening, the Carpenter Falls Annexation

came up on the agenda. The details of the annexation were presented to the Council by a staff

member of the City Planning Department. Next, Mr. Edens gave a presentation regarding the

proposed development. Then various citizens spoke about the development. Most citizen

comments were in opposition to the development. One of the citizens expressed concern that the

13
 ® v
24CV51216
City Council was rushing through the process, and she did not understand why. She exclaimed,

"What's the rush?"

66. Then, some of the council members spoke about the development. Dr. Holsey-

Hyman asked Mr. Edens some questions about the project, addressing the same issues she had

expressed with Mr. Edens in their conversation earlier in the day. When Defendant Mayor Pro

Tem Middleton spoke, he expressed strong support for the development and expressed frustration,

in a surprisingly arrogant manner, that any council member could possibly vote no on the

development. At this point, he knew that Jillian Johnson was not present, and he knew that Mayor

O'Neill and Council member Freeman were likely going to be voting no. He now sensed that Dr.

Holsey-Hyman was also going to vote no, meaning the annexation vote was going to fail. He
99 46
stated: "this is so perfunctory that the planning commission doesn't take a vote on it; this is

almost a lay-up for us;" "I don't think I have ever seen this much opposition to a direct translation

vote;
53 66
"we don't get many lay-ups on the city council;" and "this has historically been

perfunctory."

67. The final vote on the Carpenter Falls Annexation was a 3-3 tie, so the annexation

failed to pass. O'Neill, Freeman, and Holsey-Hyman voted no; Middleton, Williams, and

Caballero voted yes.

68. Shortly after the vote failed, Mr. Edens exited the Council chambers, visibly

frustrated. Mr. Middleton was seen talking on his cell phone very shortly after the meeting

concluded.

3
In fact, the rush was that, upon information and belief, as referenced above, as soon as the Carpenter
Falls Annexation was approved, Mr. Edens and Edens Investments were going to convey the property to
another developer/builder who was then going to perform the development building work. Mr. Edens and
Edens Investments stood to lose a substantial amount of money for every day that the Carpenter Falls
Annexation was not approved. All Defendants to this action knew this.

14
 @
Macys 1218
Ill. Edens' Frustration and Overzealous Desire to Get His Project Approved by the
Council as Quickly as Possible Fuels Motive to Make False and Defamatory
Accusations of Extortion.

69. The next day, Tuesday March 7, 2023, Mr. Edens sent an email to Dr. Holsey-

Hyman, saying, "let's check in." Dr. Holsey-Hyman was very busy with her work and also

organizing her campaign kickoff event which was to be held the upcoming weekend. She did not

see the email and did not respond.

70. Mr. Edens sent another email to Dr. Holsey-Hyman the next day, Wednesday

March 8, again asking if they could "check in." Again, Dr. Holsey-Hyman did not see this email

and did not respond.

71. On the morning of Saturday March 11, 2023, Defendant Mr. Edens called

Defendant Sara Young, the City Planning Director, and told Ms. Young that Dr. Holsey-Hyman

had told him in their telephone conversation on March 6 that in order to obtain support for his

Carpenter Falls development project, he would need to make a contribution to her campaign for

reelection.

72. This accusation was categorically false, and Mr. Edens knew this accusation was

false. Upon information and belief, Mr. Edens made this accusation with malicious intent in

retaliation for Dr. Holsey-Hyman not voting yes for his development project.

73. As Ms. Young knew, and as Mr. Edens knew (and as everyone on and/or associated

with the City Council knows), this was an accusation of extortion, which is a felony. There is no

more serious and damaging accusation that can be lodged against a sitting council member.

74. Upon information and belief, Mr. Edens called Ms. Young to make this false

accusation against Dr. Hosley-Hyman because he was very upset that his development annexation

had not passed, and he was going to lose a lot of money as a result. He also now knew that Dr.

15
 1

24cvS1218
Holsey-Hyman was running for reelection. He now knew that she was likely not going to be

supportive of developments in the future, and he wanted her off the Council.

75. Mr. Edens did not call the police, which is what one would normally do to report a

crime. Instead, he called Ms. Young, because he had a close relationship with Ms. Young, he

knew she liked him, he knew that she supported his development, and he knew that she was also

very frustrated that Dr. Holsey-Hyman had voted no for the Carpenter Falls Annexation. Upon

information and belief, he wanted to provide some fabricated "ammunition" for his friends on the

Council, that were also upset and frustrated with Dr. Holsey-Hyman's "no" vote, to force Dr.

Holsey-Hyman to resign and/or to decide against running for reelection.

76. Mr. Edens told Ms. Young that he did not want his name disclosed, he wanted his

name to be kept confidential. So, he wanted Dr. Holsey-Hyman punished, humiliated, and to be

removed from the Council, but he did not want his name to be revealed at all. He knew that his

friend, Sara Young, would try to keep his name confidential.

77. The fact that Mr. Edens told Ms. Young that he wanted to keep his name

confidential should have been a clear red flag to Ms. Young that he was not being truthful. Ms.

Young knew that any accusation of extortion would have to be investigated, and the name of the

accuser would have to be revealed. The fact that Mr. Edens was saying he didn't want his name

to be revealed meant that Mr. Edens didn't want to be interviewed by police or anyone else about

the matter; he just wanted to "plant the seed" within the City. Again, this should have been, and

very likely was, a clear indication to Ms. Young that the accusation had no merit.

16
 24CVS 1218
IV. Defendants Young and RehbergZ Repeat and Make Public False and Defamato ry
Accusations and Implications of Extortion with a Complete Disregard as to Whether
the Accusations Were True, Fueled by Frustration with Dr. Holsey-Hyman and an
Effort to Retaliate.

78. Ms. Young received the aforementioned call from Mr. Edens on the morning of

Saturday March 11, 2023. Despite the seriousness of the allegation, Ms. Young did not call Dr.

Holsey-Hyman to ask for her side of the story. She knew Dr. Holsey-Hyman and knew of her

background and credentials. She knew how preposterous it would be for an educator with Dr.

Hosley-Hyman's esteemed background to risk her entire career and livelihood over a vote on a

property development annexation to which she had no personal connection or involvement.

79. Ms. Young knew that Mr. Edens had a lot to lose as a result of Dr. Holsey-Hyman's

"no" vote; she knew Mr. Edens had a real motive to try to get Dr. Holsey-Hyman removed from

the Council and to get his project back before the Council and approved as soon as possible. She

knew there was a strong likelihood that Mr. Edens was not telling the truth; however, she

disregarded this belief. Upon information and belief, she saw this accusation of extortion, as Mr.

Edens was anticipating she would do, as an opportunity to silence or remove a likely "no" vote for

future development projects that came before the Council.

80. Ms. Young did not call the police, just as Mr. Edens had not called the police. Mr.

Edens had told her to keep his name confidential, and she certainly was going to abide by his

wishes.

81. Onthe evening of March 12, 2023 Ms. Young called the City Attorney, Defendant

Kimberly Rehberg, and reported to her the conversation she had had with Mr. Edens the day

before. Approximately 30 hours passed after Mr. Edens called Ms. Young before Ms. Young

called Ms. Rehberg. Upon information and belief, in the interim, Ms. Young may have had other

17
 @ v
24CV51218
conversations about this matter with some City council members and with other City employees;

however, she has not yet disclosed these conversations.

82. Ms. Young has stated that she did not keep any notes whatsoever of her

conversation with Mr. Edens. This was one of the most important phone conversations Ms. Young

had ever had in her job, regarding information that could potentially ruin Dr. Holsey-Hyman's

career, and she allegedly kept no notes. Upon information and belief, Ms. Young did not keep

notes in order to attempt to comply with Mr. Edens' demands that his name be kept confidential,

and because she had serious concerns about the truth of what Mr. Edens was saying. Or, Ms.

Young kept notes that have since been destroyed.

83. Despite knowing how unlikely it was that Dr. Holsey-Hyman would have

committed extortion, and knowing all of the motives Mr. Edens had to lie or grossly misrepresent

the nature of his conversations with Dr. Holsey-Hyman in attempt to get her in trouble and

removed from the Council, Ms. Young repeated the accusation that Dr. Holsey-Hyman had

attempted to extort a campaign contribution from Mr. Edens in exchange for a yes vote on his

project to the City Attorney, Ms. Rehberg.

84. In the alternative, Ms. Young intentionally, grossly, and falsely exaggerated and

misrepresented what Mr. Edens told her when she relayed what had transpired to Ms. Rehberg.

85. Ms. Rehberg was also frustrated with Dr. Holsey-Hyman's "no" vote on the

Carpenter Falls Annexation. Ms. Rehberg also believed that Dr. Holsey-Hyman was not

supportive of her receiving a raise. (See, footnote 2, supra.)

86. Ms. Young knew that Ms. Rehberg was frustrated with Dr. Holsey-Hyman, which,

upon information and belief, is partly why Ms. Young contacted Ms. Rehberg instead of her

immediate supervisor.

18
 Mac VS 1218
87. Just like Ms. Young, Ms. Rehberg was very aware of Dr. Holsey-Hyman's

distinguished career and background in education and social work. Just like Ms. Young, Ms.

Rehberg knew how preposterous it would be for Dr. Holsey-Hyman to commit extortion and risk

ruining her entire career over a vote on a property development project to which she had no

personal connection or involvement. A Class F felony had been reported as having been

committed, yet, she did not call the police or the SBI, she did not call Dr. Holsey-Hyman to get

her side of the story as to what happened, she did not call Mr. Edens to ask him more questions

about what happened and to try to clarify exactly what was said, and she did not call the Mayor.

88. Instead, she called Defendant Mayor Pro Tem Mark Middleton.

89. Upon information and belief, she called Mr. Middleton because she knew that Mr.

Middleton was also frustrated with Dr. Holsey-Hyman's "no" vote, because she knew Mr.

Middleton was close with Mr. Edens, and because she knew that Mr. Middleton was frustrated

with Dr. Holsey-Hyman's resistance to Ms. Rehberg receiving a raise.

A. Defendant Rehberg's March 13, 2023 Letter.

90. After consultation with Mr. Middleton, and without consulting with Mayor O'Neal,

the next day, on March 13, 2023, Ms. Rehberg sent by email a letter to all of the City Council

members, a letter that she knew would immediately be a matter of public record and available to

the press, containing numerous false and defamatory statements and insinuations that were

intended to embarrass and humiliate Dr. Holsey-Hyman and were intended to forever harm Dr.

Holsey-Hyman's reputation. A true and accurate copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit

A.

91. In writing the letter, upon information and belief, Ms. Rehberg intended to

embarrass Dr. Holsey-Hyman because she had voted no on the Carpenter Falls Annexation, and

Ms. Rehberg intended to give necessary "ammunition" to the other Councilmembers so that they

19
 @ v
24€V51218
could take actions to remove Dr. Holsey-Hyman from the Council or to otherwise stop her from

voting no on future development projects that were to come before the Council. Ms. Rehberg also

intended to embarrass Dr. Holsey-Hyman because she had been resistant to Ms. Rehberg receiving

a raise.

92. While Ms. Rehberg does not disclose Dr. Holsey-Hyman's name on the face of the

letter, it was very clear she was referring to Dr. Holsey-Hyman. Ms. Rehberg knew that all

recipients of the letter either already knew, or would quickly find out, that the subject of the letter

was Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

93. It should be emphasized that Ms. Rehberg is a lawyer. People are going to assume

that statements made by a lawyer have been vetted, researched, and investigated. Ms. Rehberg

knew this. She knew that the statements she made in her letter were going to be believed by the

Council members. The statements Ms. Rehberg made in her letter were intended to convey, and

did in fact convey, the message that Dr. Holsey-Hyman was in fact guilty of extortion, when in

fact Ms. Rehberg knew it was extremely unlikely that someone of Dr. Holsey-Hyman's

background and career would commit such a serious crime. In writing this letter, Ms. Rehberg

intentionally implied the existence of an undisclosed false and defamatory statement of fact-that

Dr. Holsey-Hyman was guilty of extortion.

94. Ms. Rehberg is the attorney for the City Council. Dr. Holsey-Hyman is on the City

Council. Dr. Holsey-Hyman was her client.*

95. Ms. Rehberg started her letter by attempting to explain and justify why she was

writing the letter in the first place (when she in fact had no legitimate reason to write the letter).

4
It should be noted that Ms. Rehberg had recently represented Council member Caballero, individually, in
federal court. Despite this, Ms. Rehberg was now apparently deciding unilaterally that she had no ethical
or legal obligation or duty whatsoever towards Council member Holsey-Hyman.

20
 e U 24CVS1218
She started her letter with a citation from the North Carolina State Bar Rules of Professional

Conduct:

If a lawyer for an organization knows that an officer, employee, or

other person associated with the organization is engaged in action,
intends to act or refuses to act in a matter related to the
representation that is a violation of a legal obligation to the
organization, or a violation of law which reasonably might be
imputed to the organization, and is likely to result in substantial
injury to the organization, then the lawyer shall proceed as is
reasonably necessary in the best interests of the organization.
Unless the lawyer reasonably believes that it is not necessary in the
best interest of the organization to do so, the lawyer shall refer the
matter to higher authority in the organization. ..

(The emphasis in bold was added by Ms. Rehberg.)

96. So, Ms. Rehberg started out her letter by explaining that the only reason she is

writing the letter is because she "knows that an officer, employee, or other person is engaged

a violation of law..." Based on her citation of this Rule, there would be absolutely no

reason for her to write the letter unless she knew someone had broken the law. Including this

citation was clearly intended to convey the message, and did in fact convey the message, that the

person to whom she was describing in the letter was in fact guilty. This insinuation was false and

defamatory. She knew that Dr. Holsey-Hyman had only been accused, she had not yet spoken to

either Dr. Holsey-Hyman or to Mr. Edens, and she also knew that it was highly unlikely that Dr.

Holsey-Hyman would have committed extortion.

97. In the letter, Ms. Rehberg then went into a summary of her conversation with

Defendant Ms. Young regarding Ms. Young's conversation with Mr. Edens and stated, "the

developer contends that during one of these meetings, the developer was informed that, in order to

obtain support for their project (i.e. a 'yes' vote on the application), they would need to make a

contribution to that councilmember's campaign."

21
 e
24CVS1218
98. By repeating this accusation, Ms. Rehberg published a false and defamatory

statement knowing it was false or with a reckless disregard as to whether the statement was false.

99. In the alternative, Ms. Rehberg intentionally, grossly, and falsely exaggerated and

misrepresented what Ms. Young and/or Mr. Edens had said regarding what had transpired.

100. In the letter, Ms. Rehberg did state that she does not know if the allegation is true,

but she repeatedly includes extremely strong and accusatorial language that would not otherwise

have been used unless she was attempting to imply that the accused is in fact guilty:

a. "T find it extremely alarming that such an allegation has been made about a member
of the Durham City Council.

b. "More importantly, the Councilmember who requested a campaign contribution in

exchange for voting a certain way, if that occurred,

It should be emphasized that, here, Ms. Rehberg made the affirmative statement "the
Councilmember who requested a campaign contribution in exchange for voting a
certain way which is clearly an affirmative statement of fact. Ms. Rehberg followed
it up with "if that occurred," but that qualifier comes after the damaging false and
defamatory statement of fact has been made. Ms. Rehberg's intent was to convey the
message that the Councilmember was guilty.

c. She attached a copy of the general statute regarding extortion and emphasized it is a
Class F Felony. There was no need for Ms. Rehberg to attach a copy of the statute
unless she was intending to convey the message the accused was guilty.

d. She then made the comment, "while I do not have a legal obligation to defend
individual City Councilmembers in actions involving personal criminal conduct..."
Again, this is clearly implying that Dr. Holsey-Hyman has in fact been involved in
personal criminal conduct.

e. She then stated, "Jt should go without saying that no member ofthe City Council should
ever demand or accept anything of value in connection with engaging in any action or
activity that is a part of the official duties of the office.

In this statement, as with numerous other statements in the letter, Ms. Rehberg appears
to be lecturing the City councilmembers, as if she is a seventh-grade teacher lecturing
her students (which is not done unless the teacher believes inappropriate conduct has
in fact occurred). This type of lecturing about inappropriate conduct is a clear
implication that inappropriate conduct has occurred.

22
 24CV5 1218
f. Ms. Rehberg follows up this lecturing with the statement, "J suggest that any
Councilmember who has engaged in such activity consult their own personal lawyer.

Again, this is another statement that Ms. Rehberg included to intentionally convey the
message that Dr. Holsey-Hyman has in fact engaged in criminal activity.

g. Ms. Rehberg started the next paragraph with "the developer who reported the above-
."
described conversation to Director Young also reported... and then goes on to
discuss that the developer believed there were separate text chats going on between
councilmembers during open Council meetings.

In this statement there is no qualifier that the conversation (between the developer and
Dr. Holsey-Hyman) may not have occurred, or that the conversation did not occur in
the manner that the developer reported. This statement implies as a foregone
conclusion that the conversation occurred as reported, and then Ms. Rehberg is moving
on to another issue.

101. Seeming to have decided that this was now the opportunity to throw as many

unwarranted accusations at Dr. Hosley-Hyman as she possibly could, Ms. Rehberg then discussed

the fact that a city employee had been recently disciplined for engaging in campaign-related

activities for a current City councilmember while on the job. Ms. Rehberg referenced and attached

numerous statutes prohibiting this activity. She does not state that the councilmember is Dr.

Holsey-Hyman, but that is exactly who she is referring to, and the recipients of the letter either

already knew or were quickly able to determine this. Ms. Rehberg finished this section of the letter

with, "my hope is that Councilmembers will appreciate the sensitive position of City employees

and refrain from requesting that City Staff engage in campaign related activities while working in

an official role for the City...

102. The referenced campaign-related activity consisted of the City employee

forwarding an invitation to a friend during work hours. At the time that Ms. Rehberg wrote this

letter, the referenced City employee had already been disciplined, and the employee had gone on

record stating that he had acted on his own. There was no evidence that Dr. Holsey-Hyman had

requested the staffer to send the message during work hours. Ms. Rehberg knew this at the time

23
 Fe

24CVS1218
that she wrote the letter. Yet, she took it upon herself to lecture the Council, i.e., Dr. Holsey-

Hyman, to "refrain from requesting again, intending to convey the message that Dr. Holsey-

Hyman had in fact "requested" the inappropriate assistance from the employee, which was false

and defamatory.»

103. In writing the letter, it was Ms. Rehberg's intent to directly and impliedly convey

the message that Dr. Holsey-Hyman was guilty of extortion and also guilty of this campaign

violation. Council members receiving the letter in fact understood Ms. Rehberg's message to be

that Dr. Holsey-Hyman was guilty. Specifically, upon information and belief, Council member

Caballero stated to Council member Freeman that she believed Dr. Holsey-Hyman was guilty of

extortion after reading the letter.

104. Atthe time that Ms. Rehberg wrote the letter, she knew Dr. Holsey-Hyman had not

committed extortion or that it was highly unlikely she had committed extortion. She knew that

she had not committed any campaign violation. Ms. Rehberg published the letter with a reckless

disregard for the truth of the direct and implied defamatory statements contained therein and with

an ulterior motive or intent to embarrass Dr. Holsey-Hyman because she had voted no on the

Carpenter Falls Annexation, to potentially silence her from voting no on future development

projects, and to embarrass her for having resisted her request for a raise.

105. The City Manager, Wanda Page, was aware of the letter, reviewed the letter, and

condoned the publishing of the letter including the direct and implied defamatory statements

contained therein.

>
This City staffer issue is discussed in more detail starting at Paragraph 133, infra.

24
 e 24€5 1218
B. Defendant Middleton Demands Dr. Holsey-Hyman's Resignation.

106. As referenced above, in her March 13, 2023 letter, Ms. Rehberg appeared to be

keeping confidential the name of the council member (i.e., Dr. Holsey-Hyman) that was accused

of extortion, and she also appeared to be keeping Mr. Edens' name confidential. However, before

the letter was sent, she spoke directly to Defendant Middleton about the matter and disclosed the

names of the persons involved to him. Upon information and belief, other council members among

the group of four already knew who was involved before the letter was sent.

107. At the time that Ms. Rehberg's March 13, 2023 letter was emailed to the City
Council members, Dr. Holsey-Hyman was presiding over a leadership forum for over 90 students

at North Carolina Central University. She received a call from Mayor O'Neal for her to check her

email. Dr. Holsey-Hyman read the Rehberg letter. She understood the campaign staffer issue was

likely related to her, but she had no idea who the alleged "extortion" issue was concerning. Mayor

O'Neal told Dr. Holsey-Hyman that Defendant Middleton had just called her and told her that the

Council member the letter was concerning was Dr. Holsey-Hyman, that he (""Mr. Middleton")

wanted Dr. Holsey-Hyman to resign, and that if Dr. Holsey-Hyman resigned, this would all go

away.

108. The fact that Mr. Middleton contacted Mayor O'Neal demanding Dr. Holsey-

Hyman's resignation within minutes after Ms. Rehberg's letter was emailed to the Council

members indicates Mr. Middleton had his plan of action already in place prior to the letter being

sent.

109. The fact that Mr. Middleton told Mayor O'Neal that if Dr. Holsey-Hyman resigned,

it would all "go away," indicated Mr. Middleton had some sort of control over Mr. Edens' actions

going forward and that Mr. Middleton had probably spoken directly to Mr. Edens about the matter.

25
 Y24CV61218
To what extent Mr. Middleton and Mr. Edens discussed this matter, and/or potentially planned this

matter, is yet to be determined.

110. Mr. Middleton wanted Dr. Holsey-Hyman off of the Council. He was upset with

her for having voted no for the Carpenter Falls Annexation and on other development matters, and

he now realized she was going to be a fairly consistent "no" vote on future development matters

coming before the Council. He saw this as an easy way to embarrass her for her "no" vote and to

silence her voice.

111. Without ever speaking to Dr. Holsey-Hyman about the matter, and without ever

confirming what was said or not said between her and Mr. Edens, he stated to the Mayor that she

needed to resign.

112. When Mayor O'Neal told Dr. Holsey-Hyman that the extortion allegation was

concerning her, she was in shock. Dr. Holsey-Hyman knew she had done nothing wrong. She did

not understand how such damning false allegations could be made against her. She continued

trying to preside over her leadership forum for the rest of the afternoon. She was unable to control

her emotions. Colleagues saw her upset and crying.

C. Defendant Rehberg's March 14, 2023 Memo.

113. Apparently in response to some of the Council members' concerns over the fact

that Ms. Rehberg had sent the March 13, 2023 letter, the next day, on March 14, 2023, Ms. Rehberg

sent an email memorandum to all of the City Council members and to the City Manager, Wanda

Page. A true and accurate copy of this memo is attached hereto as Exhibit B. As with her letter,

Ms. Rehberg knew this memorandum would be a matter of public record and would immediately

be available to the public and to the media.

26
 24C€VS 1218
114. In her March 14, 2023 memo, Ms. Rehberg made more false and defamatory

statements and implications about Dr. Holsey-Hyman. In the only portion of the memo that she

placed in bold print, Ms. Rehberg stated:

The City Council should be concerned about the threats to the

integrity of its work and to public confidence posed by
allegations of corruption. It is unlikely that a developer would
report conduct that has no factual basis or to maliciously cause
harm, particularly a developer who regularly brings matters
before the City.

115. For Ms. Rehberg to state her opinion that "it is unlikely that a developer would

report conduct that has no factual basis or to maliciously cause harm" was intended to imply, and

did in fact imply, that Dr. Holsey-Hyman was in fact guilty of corruption, more specifically,

extortion. Ms. Rehberg included this scurrilous accusation despite knowing that it would be

preposterous for someone with Dr. Holsey-Hyman's esteemed background and lengthy career in

education and social work to risk her entire career and risk going to jail over a property

development to which she had no personal connection.

116. Further, for Ms. Rehberg to include this "opinion," and omit the converse, that it

was just as if not more unlikely that Dr. Holsey-Hyman had committed extortion, was also

defamatory. Such an omission was intended by Ms. Rehberg to bolster her false and defamatory

implication that Dr. Holsey-Hyman was in fact guilty.

117. Ms. Rehberg also failed to include in her letter or memo the fact that Mr. Edens

was going to lose money for every day that the Carpenter Falls Annexation did not pass, again,

ensuring the readers would believe Mr. Edens was telling the truth and that Dr. Holsey-Hyman

was guilty.

118. Oddly, in her March 14, 2023 memo, Ms. Rehberg then starts talking about the

process the City Council members need to go through in order to determine who the alleged

27
 e 24CVS 1218
extorter is. This is at ca minimum disingenuous in that she knew who it was, she knew that Mr.

Middleton knew who it was, she that Mayor O'Neal knew who it was, and she had to have assumed

the other Council members knew as well.

119. She also, shockingly for the first time, mentions that someone might want to reach

out to the developer. For Ms. Rehberg to have made so many defamatory accusations and

implications up to this point without ever speaking to Mr. Edens, or have someone else speak to

Mr. Edens, exhibited an extraordinarily reckless disregard for the truth of her statements and

implications, and an extraordinarily reckless disregard for the health, career, and well-being of Dr.

Holsey-Hyman.

D. Defendant Rehberg Advises the Council Should "Act Quickly" and that Dr.
Holsey-Hyman Should Recuse Herself Before the Next Meeting.

120. Ms. Rehberg then made the statement: "any Councilmember confirming that they

are implicated by the developer's allegations could, in the interests of protecting the integrity of

the City, request an excused absence for the meeting on Monday, March 20"."

121. So, Ms. Rehberg has conveniently given her expert attorney opinion that the

accused should recuse herself from future Council meetings.

122. Over the following days, Ms. Rehberg continued to stress to Mayor O'Neal that the

Council needed to act quickly, that the Council should do their own investigation and take action

before the next meeting, and that Dr. Holsey-Hyman should at a minimum recuse herself.

123. At this point, Mayor Pro Tem Middleton was demanding that Dr. Holsey-Hyman

resign, and the City Attorney Rehberg was advising the Mayor that the Council should do their

own investigation and "act quickly", and City Attorney Rehberg was advising Dr. Holsey-Hyman

that she should recuse herself from future Council meetings all in an effort to punish and

embarrass Dr. Holsey-Hyman for her "no" vote on the Carpenter Falls Annexation, to keep her

28
 2 acys 1218
from being able to vote "no" on future development projects that come before the Council, and for

other personal and vindictive reasons.

V. Defendants Johnson and Middleton Publish a False and Defamatory Resolution of

Censure and Make Other False and Defamatory Statements and Implications with a
Complete Disregard as to the Truth of the Statements, Fueled by Frustration with Dr.
Holsey-Hyman and an Effort to Retaliate.

124. It should be emphasized that around this time Mr. Edens was already speaking to

Mr. Middleton, Ms. Young, and others in the City about when would be the next time he would

be able to bring his Carpenter Falls project back up before the Council. A goal among all

Defendants was to assist Mr. Edens in getting his Carpenter Falls Annexation passed as soon as

possible.

125. Upon information and belief, Mayor O'Neal received subsequent calls and/or

emails from Mr. Middleton and others from the group of four requesting that the Mayor ask Dr.

Holsey-Hyman for her resignation and to "bring her before the Council."

126. Council member Freeman requested that the Mayor use restraint because she felt

that Mr. Middleton, Ms. Rehberg, and Ms. Johnson wanted to "crucify" Dr. Holsey-Hyman

"without justice."

127. Mayor O'Neal consulted with the UNC School of Government. Options were

provided, one of which was to turn the case over to the State Bureau of Investigation ("SBI"). On

or about March 16, 2023, the group of four, Middleton, Johnson, Caballero, and Williams, voted

(in private sessions) to submit the case to the SBI, and the matter was then submitted to the SBI

for investigation.

128. Dr. Holsey-Hyman met with Mayor O'Neal and City Attorney Rehberg, on the

same day, March 16. During the meeting, Ms. Rehberg was visibly upset at Dr. Holsey-Hyman

as if it was a foregone conclusion that Dr. Holsey-Hyman was guilty. Ms. Rehberg expressed

29
 cacy
concern that because of Dr. Holsey-Hyman's actions, everyone was going to be hurt. Dr. Holsey-

Hyman adamantly denied the accusations. Dr. Holsey-Hyman reminded Ms. Rehberg how

damaging these accusations were to her reputation and to her career. Ms. Rehberg continued to

refuse to tell Dr. Holsey-Hyman the name of the developer who had made the accusations. Ms.

Rehberg repeatedly told Dr. Holsey-Hyman that they had to keep his name "confidential."

129. Ms. Rehberg was ready and willing to publicly brandish Dr. Holsey-Hyman as

guilty of a Class F felony, before any investigation had occurred, yet was not willing to disclose

to Dr. Holsey-Hyman the name of her alleged accuser, because she needed to keep his name out

of it.

130. It should be reemphasized that there was no requirement for Ms. Rehberg to write

her March 13 letter or her March 14 memo or to express the opinions or make the statements and

implications she made in her letter and memo. An investigation could have, and should have, been

conducted first. However, the truth was of no concern to Ms. Rehberg or the other Defendants

with regard to the end result they were seeking. They wanted to embarrass and humiliate Dr.

Holsey-Hyman, and they wanted her off the Council.

131. Once the alleged extortion matter was referred to the SBI, the Defendants turned to

other ways and means to defame, discredit, embarrass, and humiliate Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

132. To provide more background with regard to the City staffer matter briefly

referenced above, on or about January 13, 2023, a city employee, Gerald Wallace, was granted

permission by City HR to work on Dr. Holsey-Hyman's campaign. Mr. Wallace was provided a

copy of the rules that stated in part he cannot perform campaign activities while on duty at work.

On March 6, 2023, Mr. Wallace sent a flier via his personal Facebook Messenger from his personal

cell phone to a friend, Lukas Rutledge, regarding Dr. Holsey-Hyman's campaign event scheduled

30
 V 26cVS 1218
for the upcoming weekend, March 12, 2023. At the time he sent this message out, Mr. Wallace

was at work and was not on a break. So, this was a violation of City policy.

133. Mr. Wallace was not asked by Dr. Holsey-Hyman to send this flier to Mr. Rutledge

while he was on the job. In fact, Dr. Holsey-Hyman had no knowledge Mr. Wallace was planning

on sending the flier to Mr. Rutledge.

134. Mr. Wallace was reprimanded for this on March 14, 2023. In the written reprimand,

it is clear that Mr. Wallace knew what he did was a violation of City policy, and it is also apparent

that he was acting on his own. There is no mention that Dr. Holsey-Hyman had requested that he

send the flier out during his work time.

135. In Ms. Rehberg's March 13, 2023 letter, she referenced this matter, as well as the

accusations of extortion. Ms. Rehberg stated in her letter, "My hope is that Councilmembers will

appreciate the sensitive position of City employees and refrain from requesting that City staff

engage in campaign related activities while working in an official role for the City .

136. However, at the time this letter was written, there was no evidence that Dr. Holsey-

Hyman had requested that Mr. Wallace send the subject message during work time. In fact, it was

readily apparent that Mr. Wallace knew the policy and had acted on his own.

137. Ms. Rehberg's intended implication by including the above-referenced sentence in

her letter was that Dr. Holsey-Hyman had in fact requested that Mr. Wallace send the subject

message during work hours, which Ms. Rehberg knew was false and defamatory.

138. After the "extortion" matter was referred to the SBI, given that the Defendants now

had to wait on the results of the SBI investigation before they could continue their attacks on Dr.

Holsey-Hyman as related to that matter, the Defendants turned all of their attention to this matter

involving the campaign volunteer sending a campaign related Facebook message to a friend during

work hours.

31
 Y 24¢ V5 1218
139. Within the following week, Defendants Council members Johnson and Middleton,

and potentially others in the group of four, devised a plan to present a false and defamatory formal

Resolution of Censure against Dr. Holsey-Hyman related to this city staffer issue.

140. Ms. Johnson and Mr. Middleton's plan was for Ms. Johnson to present the

Resolution of Censure at the March 23, 2023 public City Council meeting.

141. Ms. Johnson reviewed and obtained approval from Council members Williams and

Caballero for the Resolution of Censure.

142. Council Rules of Procedure set out the standards for Censure: "A member of

Council may be censured for extreme or outrageous conduct in making a deliberate and

intentional violation of these rules. . . ." (Council Rules of Procedure, Rule 2.14).

143. There was no possible way for anyone to argue that the campaign volunteer sending

a message to a friend during work hours could be considered "extreme or outrageous conduct."

144. Further, there was no evidence that Dr. Holsey-Hyman had requested the staffer to

send the message during work time, or that she even knew he was sending the message at all.

145. As admitted by Mr. Middleton during the March 23, 2023 City Council meeting,

there had never been a censure of any city council member, for anything, for as long as he had

been involved in the Council. No other council member had been involved or voted for a censure

prior to this. He stated the issue of censure had never even come up.

146. Yet, these four council members voted to allow Ms. Johnson to present a false and

defamatory Resolution of Censure over a campaign volunteer sending one campaign related

Facebook message to a friend during work hours.

147. Prior to the March 23, 2023 City Council meeting during which they planned to

present their Resolution of Censure regarding the city staffer matter, it was discussed and known

among the Defendants that Mayor O'Neal would be reading a statement about the "extortion

32
 WSCVS 1218
allegations" but that Dr. Holsey-Hyman's name was not going to be disclosed in the statement. It

was unsatisfactory to Ms. Johnson and the other Defendants to allow Dr. Holsey-Hyman's name

to remain confidential until the conclusion of the SBI investigation. They wanted her to be publicly

embarrassed and humiliated, especially in the eyes of the media, as soon as possible.

148. So, before the March 23, 2023 public meeting, Ms. Johnson leaked to the press that

Dr. Holsey-Hyman was the council member that was the subject of the "extortion probe." The

press now definitively knew that Dr. Holsey-Hyman was the subject of Ms. Rehberg's March 13,

2023 letter. There was no purpose for Ms. Johnson doing this other than to ensure that the press

and media would be ready to pounce on Dr. Holsey-Hyman, regarding both the false Censure and

the false "extortion" allegation, and to inflict as much embarrassment, ridicule, emotional distress,

and humiliation as she could upon Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

149. Upon information and belief, the fact that Ms. Johnson planned to leak Dr. Holsey-

Hyman's name to the press was discussed between her and Mr. Middleton, and others.

150. The "Resolution of Censure of Council Member Monique Holsey-Hyman" was

presented to the City Council by Ms. Johnson during its March 23, 2023 meeting. It stated that on

two separate occasions Dr. Holsey-Hyman had asked a city staffer to perform campaign-related

work while on duty. This was not true. Ms. Johnson knew this was not true at the time that she

drafted and presented the Resolution of Censure to the Council. A true and accurate copy of the

Resolution of Censure of Council Member Monique Holsey-Hyman is attached hereto as Exhibit

C.

151. Prior to the March 23, 2023 meeting, Ms. Johnson circulated a draft of the

Resolution of Censure to other Council members which included the signature of Mayor O'Neal.

The mayor never signed the Resolution and did not approve of the Censure. Mayor O'Neal

immediately requested that her name be removed from the Resolution of Censure.

33
 ¥

§240V51218
152. After Ms. Johnson presented the Resolution of Censure, Dr. Holsey-Hyman made

a statement succinctly denying any wrongdoing. She made it clear that she never asked the staff

member to do any campaign activity during work hours.

153. After Dr. Holsey-Hyman's statement, Mayor Pro Tem Middleton then made a

statement. Despite the fact that there was no evidence that Dr. Holsey-Hyman had asked the staff

member to perform campaign related activity during work hours, and despite the fact that Dr.

Holsey-Hyman had just clarified to everyone that she had not done so, Mr. Middleton repeatedly

made statements inferring that she had. He made the comment that if a councilmember has to

question whether what he/she is asking the staff member to do is campaign related, then the

councilmember should refrain from asking the staff member to perform the task. This was

inferring that Ms. Holsey-Hyman had in fact asked the subject staff member to perform the

questioned activity during work hours, which she had not. This was a false and defamatory

inference. Mr. Middleton knew this inference was false.

154. Mr. Middleton voiced strong support for the Resolution of Censure, despite never

having voted on or considered a censure before, and despite being aware of the standard for censure

being "extreme or outrageous conduct" as stated in the Rules referenced above.

155. In an effort to convince others to also vote for the censure, Mr. Middleton stated

that a censure was comparable to a "slap on the wrist," "running a red light," or "a seat belt ticket."

156. Without any evidence that Dr. Holsey-Hyman had committed the questioned acts

at all, Mr. Middleton stated that Dr. Holsey-Hyman had exhibited a "pattern of behavior." This

was a false and defamatory statement and inference that Mr. Middleton knew was false at the time

he made it.

157. Ms. Johnson then spoke and repeated many of the same statements and inferences

that Mr. Middleton had made. She stated that there was a "pattern of behavior," which was false

34
 e
24CVS1218
and defamatory, and she made the statement that because the staff member was performing

campaign work, then Dr. Holsey-Hyman had to have asked the staff member to do the work at

some point, inferring that she was guilty. Ms. JJohnson of course glossed over the glaring omission

in this rationalization that Dr. Holsey-Hyman never asked the staff member to send the subject

message during work hours. This had just been made very clear by Dr. Holsey-Hyman, and

there was no other evidence that she had. The staff member had already provided a written

statement explaining that he had done this on his own.

158. The Resolution of Censure that Ms. Johnson presented to the Council was false and

defamatory. The statements that Mr. Middleton and Ms. Johnson made from the Dais on March

23, 2023 were false and defamatory.

159. The Resolution of Censure was never voted on but it was intentionally brought

before the Council to defame, disparage, denigrate, humiliate, and embarrass Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

It was never brought up again, leaving the Resolution pending and hanging over Dr. Holsey-

Hyman's head.

160. At the conclusion of the May 23, 2023 Council meeting, Mayor O' Neal expressed

on record shock and what could fairly be characterized as disgust over the way some of her fellow

council members, including Johnson and Middleton, had treated Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

161. Fellow Council member DeDreana Freeman proclaimed to the Mayor that this was

an unjustified and uncalled for rush to judgment, and that she "would not participate in a public

lynching of a Black woman."

162. A heated argument took place between Defendant Middleton and Council member

Freeman after the March 23, 2023 meeting during which Middleton commented something to the

effect of, "I told you we shouldn't have voted her in," implying they should not have voted to

appoint Dr. Holsey-Hyman to the Council.

35
 e v
24CV51218
163. Asa result of Ms. Johnson alerting the media that Dr. Holsey-Hyman was the

"alleged extorter," the media covering the March 23, 2023 reported not only on the issues

presented in the Resolution of Censure regarding alleged improper use of city staff, but also on the

"alleged extortion" issue, squarely naming Dr. Holsey-Hyman as the target.

164. All local and many state-wide newspapers, TV stations, and other outlets covered

the story.

165. It should be emphasized that the Resolution of Censure, and all of the defamatory

comments made by Defendant Middleton and Defendant Johnson at the May 23, 2023 City

Council Meeting were not properly before the Council. The actions outlined in the Resolution of

Censure did not come close to meeting the "extreme and outrageous conduct" standard for censure

outlined in the Council Rules.

166. Because the Resolution of Censure and all of Mr. Middleton and Ms. Johnson's

comments regarding the Resolution of Censure at the March 23, 2023 City Council meeting were

not material or pertinent to any issue properly before the Council, the Defendants are not afforded

any privilege or immunity from liability for their defamatory and other wrongful actions taken on

the Council Dais.

167. Further, all of the other defamatory and wrongful actions taken by Defendants

Young, Rehberg, Middleton, and Johnson referenced herein were taken with an intentional

disregard for the falsity of the statements they were making and with an intentional and gross

disregard for the rights, health, and wellbeing of Dr. Holsey-Hyman. All of said Defendants'

actions were taken in bad faith and with actual malice, accordingly, said Defendants are not

afforded any potential qualified or conditional immunity or privilege from liability for their

actions.

36
 e U 24CV51218
168. The Resolution of Censure, and the other defamatory actions taken by the

Defendants from March 12 through March 23 were all intended to:

a. Disparage, embarrass, and humiliate Dr. Holsey-Hyman;

b. Punish and retaliate against Dr. Holsey-Hyman for her "no" vote on the Carpenter Falls
Annexation;

c. Silence Dr. Hosley-Hyman's vote long enough to enable Mr. Edens and Edens
Investments to quickly bring their Carpenter Falls Annexation back before the Council
quickly and to ensure its passage;

d. To retaliate and punish Dr. Holsey-Hyman for not voting in support of Ms. Rehberg's
request for a raise and/or promotion;

e. Ensure removal of Dr. Holsey-Hyman from the City Council either by resignation,
withdrawal of her reelection efforts, or an election loss, so that she would be unable to
vote "no" on development projects in the future; and

f. For other reasons to be determined through discovery and at trial.

169. Mr. Edens and Edens Investments' Carpenter Falls Annexation was brought back

before the Council on May 12, 2023, which was much sooner than the normal process allows.

Mayor O'Neal announced that Mr. Edens was the developer that had made the allegations against

Dr. Holsey-Hyman. This was the first time that the public was made aware of the identity of Mr.

Edens as the accuser. The vote on his project was delayed until May 15 for Council member

Caballero to return from being out of town, at which time, his annexation passed. Mr. Edens and

Edens Investments got what they wanted.

170. The SBI's investigation was completed on September 15, 2023 and concluded that

Dr. Holsey-Hyman had committed no wrongdoing whatsoever regarding the alleged "extortion"

matter, and it also determined that she had committed no wrongdoing whatsoever regarding the

allegation that she had improperly solicited a City staffer to engage in campaign activities.

171. The SBI report stressed that Dr. Holsey-Hyman had been extremely cooperative

during the investigation process; while, to the contrary, Mr. Edens was very uncooperative. The

37
 ® v 24CVS
1218
report detailed that Mr. Edens was never willing to be interviewed about the matter, that he did not

answer calls, that he did not return messages, that he agreed to meet for an interview but then did

not appear, and that Mr. Edens' attorney represented he would be providing a written statement

from Mr. Edens, but the written statement was never provided.

172. After the one time the SBI Investigator was actually able to very briefly speak to

Mr. Edens, the investigator stated in his report that, "Edens said that it [referring to whatever

comments were made between him and Dr. Holsey-Hyman] was not really a big deal, and it almost

made him giggle."

173. The SBI presented its report to Satana Deberry, the District Attorney for the 16"

Prosecutorial District, who summarized the findings of the report in a letter to the City dated

September 19, 2023. A true and accurate copy of this September 19, 2023 letter is attached hereto

as Exhibit D.

174. The false allegations of extortion and false allegations of other wrongdoing

referenced herein continue to be spread throughout social media. Everytime someone searches

Dr. Holsey-Hyman online, these false allegations are the first stories to pop-up. These false

allegations will follow and be with Dr. Holsey-Hyman for the rest of her life.

175. Additional defamatory publications will be revealed through discovery and

established at trial.

VI. Damages.

176. Dr. Holsey-Hyman has suffered severe emotional distress, embarrassment, injury

to moral character, and injury to reputation as a result of Defendants' libel, slander, retaliation, and

other wrongful actions.

177. Dr. Holsey-Hyman has suffered sleeplessness. She suffered panic attacks. She has

suffered from headaches and migraines. She suffered uncontrolled crying. She had trouble

38
 24C5121¢
performing her responsibilities as a professor at N.C. Central University. She had trouble

performing her duties as a City Councilmember. She suffered increased anxiety just walking into

the City Council building.

178. Dr. Holsey-Hyman was the subject of repeated and constant disparaging and

humiliating social media posts and comments repeating the false allegations.

179. Dr. Holsey-Hyman was passed over for awards and other accommodations for

which she otherwise would have been considered but for Defendants' wrongful actions.

180. Dr. Holsey-Hyman has lost publication contracts and promotions as a result of

Defendants' wrongful actions.

181. Dr. Holsey-Hyman decided to continue with her reelection campaign; however, the

majority of the time that she was campaigning, the SBI investigation was still pending. She was

unable to secure several key endorsements primarily due to the fact that she was under

investigation for extortion. When she reached out for support from the Realtor Association, their

response was, "why don't you admit you' re guilty."

182. She was unable to raise as much money as she otherwise would have but for the

Defendants' wrongful accusations and other wrongful actions. Dr. Holsey-Hyman lost her bid for

reelection. The Defendants achieved their primary objective, to ensure Dr. Holsey-Hyman was

punished and removed.

183. Dr. Holsey-Hyman has sought professional mental health treatment and has been

diagnosed with acute stress disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.

184. Dr. Holsey-Hyman is entitled to an award of all damages presumed by law to have

been suffered by such defamatory actions in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact. Dr.

Holsey-Hyman has suffered other actual damages, including monetary damages, as a result of

Defendants' libel, slander, and other wrongful actions, including but not limited to loss of income.

39
 94CVS1218
185. As Defendants' actions were committed intentionally, with a reckless disregard for

Dr. Holsey-Hyman's rights, and with actual malice, and with common law malice, all as more

specifically set forth in paragraphs 25 through 175, above, Dr. Holsey-Hyman is entitled to an

award of punitive damages as allowed by law to deter Defendants from committing this type of

conduct again in the future.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Slander Per Se Against Jarrod Edens and Edens Investments, Inc.)

186. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1

through 185 of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

187. On or about March 11, 2023, Defendant Jarrod Edens uttered, and caused to be

uttered words to Defendant Sara Young and to potentially others, as referenced above, that were

false and defamatory.

188. At the time the aforedescribed defamatory statements were uttered, Mr. Edens was

working for and on behalf of his company Edens Investments. Edens Investments stood to gain

from Mr. Edens' defamatory statements if they were to be successful in silencing Dr. Holsey-

Hyman's voice and ensuring passage of the Carpenter Falls Annexation, which they were

eventually able to do.

189. At all times alleged herein, Mr. Edens was the owner, organizer, manager, and

operator of Edens Investments. He was acting as an agent for, and on behalf of, Edens Investments.

All persons/entities who cause or participate in the publication of libelous matter are deemed

responsible, jointly and severally, for such publication. So, both Mr. Edens and Edens Investments

are jointly and severally responsible for Mr. Edens' defamatory statements referenced herein.

40
 e
24CVS1218
190. The statements uttered by Mr. Edens on or about March 11, 2023 as referenced

herein, falsely accused Dr. Holsey-Hyman of crimes and also impeached Dr. Holsey-Hyman in

her trade and profession.

191. At the time the statements were uttered, Defendant Edens and Edens Investments

either knew the statements were false or failed to exercise ordinary care in order to determine

whether the statements were false.

192. Further, at the time the statements were uttered, Defendant Edens and Edens

Investments either knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard as to whether

the statements were false. As such, Defendants Edens and Edens Investments uttered the

statements with actual malice.

193. The false, defamatory statements made by Defendants Edens and Edens

Investments on or about March 11, 2023 as referenced herein were of and concerning Dr. Holsey-

Hyman.

194. The words uttered by Defendants Edens and Edens Investments on or about March

11, 2023 as referenced herein defamed and slandered Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

195. Defendants Edens and Edens Investments made other defamatory statements to be

established through discovery and at trial.

196. Dr. Holsey-Hyman has suffered presumed and actual damages, including but not

limited to actual monetary damages in the form of medical and other healthcare expenses, lost

earnings and lost revenue, all in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00),

proximately caused by Defendants Edens and Edens Investments, as a result of their defamation

of Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

197. Dr. Holsey-Hyman is entitled to punitive damages as more specifically set forth

above as allowed by law.

41
 v 940VS1218
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Slander Per Se Against Sara Young)

198. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1

through 197 of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

199. Onor about March 11, 12, and 13, 2023, Defendant Sara Young uttered, and caused

to be uttered words to Defendant Kim Rehberg and to potentially others, as referenced above, that

were false and defamatory.

200. The statements uttered by Ms. Young on or about March 11, 12, and 13, 2023 as

referenced herein falsely accused Dr. Holsey-Hyman of crimes and also impeached Dr. Holsey-

Hyman in her trade and profession.

201. At the time the statements were uttered, Defendant Young either knew the

statements were false or failed to exercise ordinary care in order to determine whether the

statements were false.

202. Further, at the time the statements were uttered, Defendant Young knew the

statements were false or acted with reckless disregard as to whether the statements were false. As

such, Defendant Young uttered the statements with actual malice.

203. The false, defamatory statements made by Defendant Young on or about March 11,

12, and 13, 2023 as referenced herein were of and concerning Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

204. The words uttered by Defendant Young on or about March 11, 12, and 13, 2023 as

referenced herein defamed and slandered Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

205. Defendant Young made other defamatory statements to be established through

discovery and at trial.

206. Dr. Holsey-Hyman has suffered presumed and actual damages, including but not

limited to actual monetary damages in the form of medical and other healthcare expenses, lost

42
 4Cv9 1218
earnings and lost revenue, in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), proximately

caused by Defendant Young, as a result of her defamation of Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

207. Dr. Holsey-Hyman is entitled to punitive damages as more specifically set forth

above as allowed by law.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Libel Per Se Against Kimberly Rehberg and the City of Durham)

208. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1

through 207 of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

209. Defendant Rehberg wrote, printed, caused to print, and possessed in printed form

her March 13, 2023 letter and her March 14, 2023 memo referenced herein.

210. Defendant Rehberg published her March 13, 2023 letter and her March 14, 2023

memo to the City Council and to others. She also knew that both the letter and memo were public

record and would immediately be available to the public and to the media. She knew they would

be, and intended for them to be, published to the public, which they were.

211. Statements and implications made in Defendant Rehberg's March 13, 2023 letter

and her March 14, 2023 memo, as described herein, were false.

212. Statements and implications made in Defendant Rehberg's March 13, 2023 letter

and her March 14, 2023 memo, as described herein, were defamatory.

213. Statements and implications made in Defendant Rehberg's March 13, 2023 letter

and her March 14, 2023 memo, as described herein, falsely accused Dr. Holsey-Hyman of crimes

and impeached Dr. Holsey-Hyman in her trade and profession.

214. At the time of the publication of Defendant Rehberg's March 13, 2023 letter and

her March 14, 2023 memo, as described herein, Defendant Rehberg either knew the statements

43
 BicySi218
and implications made in said publications were false or failed to exercise ordinary care in order

to determine whether the statements and implications were false.

215. Additionally, at the time of the publication of Defendant Rehberg's March 13, 2023

letter and her March 14, 2023 memo, as described herein, Defendant Rehberg either knew that the

statements and implications made in said publications were false or acted with reckless disregard

of whether the statements and implications were false. As such, Defendant Rehberg published the

statements and implications with actual malice.

216. The false, defamatory statements and implications contained in Defendant

Rehberg's March 13, 2023 letter and her March 14, 2023 memo, as described herein, were of and

concerning Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

217. The words published by Defendant Rehberg by means of her March 13, 2023 letter

and her March 14, 2023 memo, as described herein, defamed and libeled Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

218. At the time the aforedescribed defamatory statements and implications were

published, Defendant Rehberg was working for and on behalf of the City of Durham. As was

stated in writing by Defendant Rehberg, City Manager Wanda Page was aware of and condoned

the statements and implications made by Defendant Rehberg referenced herein. Defendant

Rehberg and City Manager Page knew that by sending the defamatory letter and memo referenced

herein to the City Councilmembers, they were publishing the letter and memo to the public. The

City of Durham was aware of and condoned the defamatory statements and implications uttered

by Defendant Rehberg.

219. All persons/entities who cause or participate in the publication of libelous matter

are deemed responsible, jointly and severally, for such publication. So, both Defendant Rehberg

individually and the City of Durham are jointly and severally responsible for Defendant Rehberg's

defamatory statements and implications referenced herein.

44
 94CV51218
220. Dr. Holsey-Hyman has suffered presumed and actual damages, including but not

limited to actual monetary damages in the form of medical and other healthcare expenses, lost

earnings and lost revenue, in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), proximately

caused by Defendant Rehberg and the City of Durham, as a result of their defamation of Dr.

Holsey-Hyman.

221. Dr. Holsey-Hyman is entitled to punitive damages as more specifically set forth

above as allowed by law.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Libel Per Quod Against Kimberly Rehberg and the
City of Durham-In the Alternative)

222. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1

through 221 of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

223. While Plaintiff asserts the March 13, 2023 letter and the March 14, 2023 memo are

libel per se, to the extent any part of said publications are deemed libel per quod, Plaintiff states

as follows.

224. Defendant Rehberg wrote, printed, caused to print, and possessed in printed form

her March 13, 2023 letter and her March 14, 2023 memo referenced herein.

225. Defendant Rehberg published her March 13, 2023 letter and her March 14, 2023

memo to the City Council and to others. She also knew that both the letter and memo were public

record and would be immediately available to the public and to the media. She knew they were

going to be published to the public, which they were.

226. Statements and implications made in Defendant Rehberg's March 13, 2023 letter

and her March 14, 2023 memo, as described herein, were false.

227. Statements and implications made in Defendant Rehberg's March 13, 2023 letter

and her March 14, 2023 memo, as described herein, were defamatory.

45
 oacys 1218
228. Statements and implications made in Defendant Rehberg's March 13, 2023 letter

and her March 14, 2023 memo, as described herein, falsely accused Dr. Holsey-Hyman of crimes

and impeached Dr. Holsey-Hyman in her trade and profession.

229. At the time of the publication of Defendant Rehberg's March 13, 2023 letter and

her March 14, 2023 memo, as described herein, Defendant Rehberg either knew the statements

and implications made in said publications were false or failed to exercise ordinary care in order

to determine whether the statements and implications were false.

230. Additionally, at the time of the publication of Defendant Rehberg's March 13, 2023

letter and her March 14, 2023 memo, as described herein, Defendant Rehberg either knew that the

statements and implications made in said publications were false or acted with reckless disregard

of whether the statements and implications were false. As such, Defendant Rehberg published the

statements and implications with actual malice.

231. The false, defamatory statements and implications contained in Defendant

Rehberg's March 13, 2023 letter and her March 14, 2023 memo, as described herein, were of and

concerning Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

232. The words published by Defendant Rehberg by means of her March 13, 2023 letter

and her March 14, 2023 memo, as described herein, defamed and libeled Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

233. The false statements are defamatory when considered in connection with innuendo,

colloquium, and the circumstances in which they were made, thus constituting libel per quod.

234. At the time the aforedescribed defamatory statements and implications were

published, Defendant Rehberg was working for and on behalf of the City of Durham. As was

stated in writing by Defendant Rehberg, City Manager Wanda Page was aware of and condoned

the statements and implications made by Defendant Rehberg referenced herein. Defendant

Rehberg and City Manager Page knew that by sending the defamatory letter and memo referenced

46
 e
24CVS1218
herein to the City Councilmembers, they were publishing the letter and memo to the public. The

City of Durham was aware of and condoned the defamatory statements and implications uttered

by Defendant Rehberg.

235. All persons/entities who cause or participate in the publication of libelous matter

are deemed responsible, jointly and severally, for such publication. So, both Defendant Rehberg

individually and the City of Durham are jointly and severally responsible for Defendant Rehberg's

defamatory statements and implications referenced herein.

236. Defendant Rehberg made other defamatory publications to be established through

discovery and at trial.

237. Dr. Holsey-Hyman has suffered presumed and actual damages, including but not

limited to actual monetary damages in the form of medical and other healthcare expenses, lost

earnings and lost revenue, in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), proximately

caused by Defendant Rehberg and the City of Durham, as a result of their defamation of Dr.

Holsey-Hyman.

238. Dr. Holsey-Hyman is entitled to punitive damages as more specifically set forth

above as allowed by law.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Libel Per Se Against Jillian Johnson, Mark Middleton, and the City of Durham)

239. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1

through 238 of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

240. While Defendant Johnson presented the Resolution of Censure to the City Council,

Defendant Middleton participated in the drafting, preparation, and publication of the Resolution

of Censure. Accordingly, both Defendants Johnson and Middleton wrote, printed, caused to print,

and possessed in printed form the Resolution of Censure referenced herein.

47
 e
24CYS 1218
241. Defendants Johnson and Middleton published the Resolution of Censure to the City

Council, to the public, and to others.

242. Statements and implications made by Defendants Johnson and Middleton in the

Resolution of Censure, as described herein, were false.

243. Statements and implications made by Defendants Johnson and Middleton in the

Resolution of Censure, as described herein, were defamatory.

244. Statements and implications made by Defendants Johnson and Middleton in the

Resolution of Censure, as described herein, falsely accused Dr. Holsey-Hyman of crimes and

impeached Dr. Holsey-Hyman in her trade and profession.

245. At the time of the publication of the Resolution of Censure, as described herein,

Defendants Johnson and Middleton either knew the statements and implications made in said

publication were false or failed to exercise ordinary care in order to determine whether the

statements and implications were false.

246. Additionally, at the time of the publication of the Resolution of Censure, as

described herein, Defendants Johnson and Middleton either knew that the statements and

implications made in said publication were false or acted with reckless disregard of whether the

statements and implications were false. As such, Defendants Johnson and Middleton published

the statements and implications with actual malice.

247. The false, defamatory statements and implications contained in the Resolution of

Censure, as described herein, were of and concerning Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

248. The words published by Defendants Johnson and Middleton in the Resolution of

Censure, as described herein, defamed and libeled Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

48
 24CVS1218
249. In the alternative -
the false statements are defamatory when considered in

connection with innuendo, colloquium, and the circumstances in which they were made, thus

constituting libel per quod.

250. At the time the aforedescribed defamatory statements and implications were

published, Defendants Johnson and Middleton were elected City Councilmembers for the City of

Durham. They are the managers, policymakers, and highest elected officials for the City. Their

actions are one and the same as the actions of the City. Accordingly, the City of Durham is deemed

to have participated in and condoned the defamatory statements and implications published by

Defendants Johnson and Middleton.

251. All persons/entities who cause or participate in the publication of libelous matter

are deemed responsible, jointly and severally, for such publication. So, Defendants Johnson,

Middleton, and the City of Durham are jointly and severally responsible for Defendants Johnson

and Middleton's defamatory statements and implications referenced herein.

252. The Resolution of Censure was not pertinent or material to any City matters or

issues properly before the Council, and it was presented and published in bad faith and with actual

malice. Accordingly, no purported privilege or immunity from liability applies.

253. Dr. Holsey-Hyman has suffered presumed and actual damages, including but not

limited to actual monetary damages in the form of medical and other healthcare expenses, lost

earnings and lost revenue, in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), proximately

caused by Defendants Johnson, Middleton, and the City of Durham, as a result of their defamation

of Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

254. Dr. Holsey-Hyman is entitled to punitive damages as more specifically set forth

above as allowed by law.

49
 ¥

Sacys 1218
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Slander Per Se Against Jillian Johnson, Mark Middleton,
and the City of Durham)

255. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1

through 254 of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

256. At the March 23, 2023 Durham City Council meeting, Defendants Johnson and

Middleton uttered, and caused to be uttered words to the public, as referenced above, that were

false and defamatory.

257. The statements and implications uttered by Defendants Johnson and Middleton on

or about March 23 2023 as referenced herein, falsely accused Dr. Holsey-Hyman of crimes and

also impeached Dr. Holsey-Hyman in her trade and profession.

258. At the time the statements and implications were uttered, Defendants Johnson and

Middleton either knew the statements were false or failed to exercise ordinary care in order to

determine whether the statements and implications were false.

259. Further, at the time the statements and implications were uttered, Defendants

Johnson and Middleton knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard as to

whether the statements were false. As such, Defendants Johnson and Middleton uttered the

statements and implications with actual malice.

260. The false, defamatory statements and implications made by Defendants Johnson

and Middleton on or about March 23, 2023 as referenced herein were of and concerning Dr.

Holsey-Hyman.

261. The words uttered by Defendants Johnson and Middleton on or about March 23,

2023 as referenced herein defamed and slandered Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

50
 e @icvsi218
262. In the alternative -
the false statements are defamatory when considered in

connection with innuendo, colloquium, and the circumstances in which they were made, thus

constituting slander per quod.

263. At the time the aforedescribed defamatory statements and implications were

uttered, Defendants Johnson and Middleton were elected City Councilmembers for the City of

Durham. They are the managers, policymakers, and highest elected officials for the City. Their

actions are one and the same as the actions of the City. Accordingly, the City of Durham is deemed

to have participated in and condoned the defamatory statements and implications uttered by

Defendants Johnson and Middleton.

264. All persons/entities who cause or participate in the publication of slanderous matter

are deemed responsible, jointly and severally, for such publication. So, Defendants Johnson,

Middleton, and the City of Durham are jointly and severally responsible for Defendant Johnson

and Middleton's defamatory statements and implications referenced herein.

265. The statements and implications made by Defendants Johnson and Middleton at the

City Council meeting on March 23, 2023 were not pertinent or material to any City matters or

issues properly before the Council, and the statements and implications were made in bad faith

and with actual malice. Accordingly, no purported privilege or immunity from liability applies.

266. Defendants Johnson and Middleton made other defamatory statements to be

established through discovery and at trial.

267. Dr. Holsey-Hyman has suffered presumed and actual damages, including but not

limited to actual monetary damages in the form of medical and other healthcare expenses, lost

earnings and lost revenue, in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), proximately

caused by Defendants Johnson, Middleton, and the City of Durham, as a result of their defamation

of Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

51
 @ 4051218
268. Dr. Holsey-Hyman is entitled to punitive damages as more specifically set forth

above as allowed by law.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Claim Against Defendants Young, Rehberg, Johnson, Middleton, and the City of Durham
for Retaliatory Actions in Violation of Dr. Holsey-Hyman's Right to Free Speech
Established by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983)

269. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1

through 268 of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

270. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes and provides an

elected or duly appointed representative the right to speak or vote freely on questions of

government policy without fear of retribution or retaliation.

271. When the Carpenter Falls Annexation came before the Durham City Council, Dr.

Holsey-Hyman, as a duly appointed member of the City Council, had a First Amendment right to

vote on the Annexation as she chose. She voted "no" on the Annexation.

272. Dr. Holsey-Hyman's vote of "no" was free speech protected by The First

Amendment.

273. Defendants Young, Rehberg, Johnson, and Middleton were entitled to speak in

response or in opposition to Dr. Holsey-Hyman's "no" vote, but not with intentional false and

defamatory accusations, statements, and implications. There is no Constitutional right to or

protection for false and defamatory speech.

274. Defendants Young, Rehberg, Johnson, and Middleton made false and defamatory

statements and implications about Dr. Holsey-Hyman, as described herein, that they knew were

false, or were made with a reckless disregard as to the truth of the statements and implications,

with the express purpose of punishing and retaliating against Dr. Holsey-Hyman for her "no" vote,

52
and with the express purpose of silencing Dr. Holsey-Hyman by forcing her to either resign, recuse

herself from future meetings, and/or withdraw her bid for reelection.

275. Ataminimum, the aforesaid Defendants knew that after they made sure the false

and defamatory accusations of extortion were widely known throughout the public, and they voted

to have both the extortion matter and the campaign staffer matter referred to the SBI, Dr. Holsey-

Hyman would be under the cloud of a state investigation for much of the remainder of the

campaign, and they knew that she would not be able to win reelection with such an investigation

hanging over her head.

276. The aforesaid Defendants in fact achieved their intended purpose for their

defamatory, retaliatory, and wrongful actions -

Dr. Holsey-Hyman lost her reelection bid and has

not been on the City Council since.

277. Said Defendants' defamatory, retaliatory, and other wrongful actions, including the

presentation of the false and defamatory Resolution of Censure, constituted adverse actions by the

aforesaid Defendants and by the City of Durham and its agents that would not have been taken

absent the retaliatory motive.

278. Said Defendants' retaliatory actions, as described herein, resulted in Dr. Holsey-

Hyman losing her bid for reelection, in addition to the other damages set forth herein. As a result,

her vote was silenced.

279. City Manager Wanda Page and Council member Defendants Johnson and

Middleton explicitly approved of Defendant Rehberg's retaliatory and unconstitutional actions set

forth herein. Councilmember Defendants Johnson and Middleton were the highest policymakers

for the City. As such, their retaliatory and unconstitutional actions set forth herein were actions in

fact taken "by the City."

53
 9,4Cys 1218
280. Based on the principles set forth in Monell v. New York City Department of Social

Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); and City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (1988), the City

of Durham is liable for the aforesaid Defendants' deprivation of Dr. Holsey-Hyman's

constitutionally protected First Amendment rights and all of the other damages suffered by Dr.

Holsey-Hyman as set forth herein.

281. Further, Defendant City of Durham, by and through its officials, managers, and

policymakers, condoned, acquiesced, ratified, supported, and otherwise deliberately failed to

correct or put a stop to known wrongful and unconstitutional actions being taken against Dr.

Holsey-Hyman.

282. The City of Durham further violated Dr. Holsey-Hyman's constitutional rights in

other ways to be established through discovery and at trial.

283. Upon information and belief, the aforementioned acts of Defendants were part of a

pattern of unconstitutional conduct that exhibited at least deliberate indifference to and/or reckless

disregard of the constitutional rights of Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

284. Defendant City of Durham is liable to Dr. Holsey-Hyman for her damages under

42. U.S.C. § 1983.

285. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants Young, Rehberg, Johnson,

Middleton, and the City of Durham's constitutional violations and deprivations as set forth herein,

Dr. Holsey-Hyman has suffered general and special damages, including those listed in paragraphs

176 through 185 above, in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00).

These damages were reasonably foreseeable by Defendants.

286. Dr. Holsey-Hyman is entitled to punitive damages as more specifically set forth

above as allowed by law.

54
 Movs 1218
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Civil Conspiracy Against All Defendants)
287. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1
through 286 of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

288. Upon information and belief, Defendants joined together in an agreement to

commit unlawful acts, or do lawful acts in an unlawful way.

289. In pursuit of their civil conspiracy, the above-named conspirators conspired to

unfairly and wrongfully defame and disparage Dr. Holsey-Hyman, retaliate against her for her vote

on the Carpenter Falls Annexation, silence her voice on future development matters to come before

the Council, and in the other ways as specifically set forth and described herein. The conspirators

committed other unlawful and wrongful actions in pursuit of their conspiracy as may further be

revealed through discovery and at trial.

290. The conspirators conspired to commit these acts secretly, without Dr. Holsey-

Hyman's knowledge, and they concealed their plans and actions from Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

291. The conspirators knew their actions were wrongful and were violating Dr. Holsey-

Hyman's rights.

292. The actions of Defendants were malicious, willful and wanton. Dr. Holsey-Hyman

has been damaged by Defendants' unlawful actions in furtherance of said conspiracy, and Dr.

Holsey-Hyman is entitled to recover damages in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand

Dollars ($25,000.00), together with interest as allowed by law.

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Intentional/Negligent Infliction of Mental and Emotional Distress -
Against All
Defendants)

293. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1

through 292 of

this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

55
 ®
24CVS 1218
294. The defamatory, retaliatory, and wrongful actions of Defendants, as herein

described specifically in paragraphs 25 through 175, and in other ways to be established through

discovery and at trial, constitute extreme and outrageous conduct. Defendants' actions were

beyond the bounds usually tolerated by a decent society and were intended to cause severe

emotional and mental distress to Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

295. Defendants exhibited a reckless indifference to the health and wellbeing of Dr.

Holsey-Hyman and to the likelihood that their conduct would cause severe emotional and mental

distress to Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

296. In the alternative to the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress,

Defendants owed a duty of care to the public (including Dr. Holsey-Hyman), the City, and their

offices. Defendants breached their duties of care, and therefore negligently caused emotional

distress, in the ways previously set forth herein.

297. The extreme and reckless actions of Defendants in fact did cause severe emotional

and mental distress to Plaintiff. Dr. Holsey-Hyman has also been humiliated and embarrassed by

Defendants' actions. As a result of Defendants' actions, Dr. Holsey-Hyman has sought counseling

and treatment from mental health professionals, received mental health illness diagnoses, and been

prescribed various mental health medications.

298. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' intentional and/or negligent

infliction of mental and emotional distress, Dr. Holsey-Hyman has been damaged generally and

specially in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00). These damages

were reasonably foreseeable and were proximately caused by Defendants' actions.

56
 e
24Cy51218
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against Kimberly Rehberg)

299. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1

through 298 of

this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

300. As the City Attorney, Defendant Rehberg provides legal advice and counsel to the

Mayor, the City Council, and to other City staff, boards, and commissions of the City. The City

Attorney serves at the pleasure of, and reports directly to, the Mayor and the Council.

301. At all times alleged herein, Defendant Rehberg, as the City Attorney for the City

of Durham, owed a fiduciary toward the City Council and to Dr. Holsey-Hyman, including but not

limited to the duty to act toward the Council with fidelity, loyalty, care, and good faith.

302. At all relevant times alleged herein, Dr. Holsey-Hyman reposed trust and

confidence in Defendant Rehberg to always act in good faith and in the best interests of the

Council.

303. Defendant Rehberg breached her fiduciary duty to Dr. Holsey-Hyman and to the

Council by her defamatory, retaliatory, and other wrongful actions as set forth in paragraphs 25

through 175 above, and in other ways as may be further established in discovery and at trial.

304. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Rehberg's breaches of her fiduciary

duty, Dr. Holsey-Hyman has been damaged in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand

Dollars ($25,000.00). These damages were reasonably foreseeable and were proximately caused

by Defendant Rehberg's breaches of her fiduciary duty.

ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Punitive Damages as Against All Defendants)

305. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1

through 304 of

this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

57
 v 24CV51218
306. Defendants knew, or should have known, that their defamatory statements and

implications, as referenced herein, were false and defamatory, and that the publication of said

defamatory statements and implications would inflict serious harm, injury, and damage upon Dr.

Holsey-Hyman.

307. Defendants knew, or should have known, that their retaliatory and other wrongful

actions described herein would inflict serious harm, injury, and damage upon Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

308. Defendants' actions as described herein demonstrate a conscious and intentional

disregard of and indifference to the rights and safety of Dr. Holsey-Hyman, which Defendants

knew or reasonably should have known was reasonably likely to result in injury, damage, or harm

to Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

309. Defendants' actions alleged herein constitute willful and wanton conduct.

310. Defendants acted with ill will and common law malice in their defamatory,

retaliatory, and other wrongful actions described herein.

311. Defendants' actions of willful and wanton conduct, ill will, and common law

malice will be established in other ways through discovery or trial.

312. Asa direct and proximate result of the willful and wanton conduct, ill will, and

malice of Defendants, Dr. Holsey-Hyman has been damaged generally and specially in an amount

in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00).

313. An award of punitive damages is warranted to punish Defendants' egregious

conduct and to deter Defendants and others from engaging in similar conduct in the future.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Dr. Holsey-Hyman demands judgment against the Defendants as

follows:

58
 e
24Cys 1218
1. That Plaintiff have and recover against the Defendants all such monetary relief and

equitable relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled under the law, including but not limited to

compensation for mental anguish, injury to reputation, injury to moral character, humiliation,

embarrassment, severe emotional distress, medical and health expenses, loss of business, loss of

income, loss of earnings capacity, loss of enjoyment of life, and other out-of-pocket expenses;

2. That Plaintiff have and recover punitive damages against all Defendants,

3. That judgment against Defendants bears interest from the time of the institution of

this action or earlier as provided by law;

4. That the costs of this action, including reasonable attorney's fees as allowed by law,

be taxed against Defendants;

5. That Defendants be ordered to issue a public retraction, apology, and removal of

the false statements as contained herein;

6. That the Court grant a trial by jury on all issues so triable; and

7. For such other and further relief as may be deemed appropriate by the Court.

This the 6 day of March, 2024.

LAW OFFICES OF COREY DeMENT ASKEW JOHNSON &

CARTWRIGHT, PA MARSHALL, LLP

By: Corey C. Cartwright

Florida State Bar No. 0641928 James T/Johnson
1500 Beville Road, Suite 606 N.C. State Bar No. 19087
Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Jonathan W. Martin
Tel: 800-766-4679 N.C. State Bar No. 49381
Email: [email protected] Post Office Box 711
Attorneys for Plaintiff to be admitted Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Pro Hac Vice Tel: 919-833-5555
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff

59
 e 24cCys 1218
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DURHAM

Delivered by Email and Hand Delivery

COPY
March 13, 2023

Mayor Elaine O'Neal (Elaine.O'[email protected])

Mayor Pro Tem Mark-Anthony Middleton ([email protected])
Councilmember Javiera Caballero (Javiera. [email protected])
Councilmember DeDreana Freeman ([email protected])
Councilmember Monique Holsey-Hyman ([email protected])
Councilmember Jillian Johnson (Jillian. [email protected])
Councilmember Leonardo Williams (Leonardo. [email protected])

Subject: Reported Potential Legal and Ethical Violations on the Part of City Council

Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Members of the Durham City Council:

| write with deep concem about recently reported conduct by one or more members of the
Durham City Council. Before share what has been reported to me as the Durham City Attorney,
|

first, let me make clear that my client first and foremost is the City of Durham-the municipal
corporation as a legal entity. The North Carolina State Bar has promulgated a rule of professional
conduct to guide attorneys when their client is an organization. That rule provides in relevant
part as follows:

If a lawyer for an organization knows that an officer, employee, or other person associated
with the organization is engaged in action, intends to act or refuses to act in a matter
related to the representation that is a violation of a legal obligation to the organization, or
a violation of law which reasonably might be imputed to the organization, and is
likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, then the lawyer shall proceed
as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the organization. Unless the lawyer
reasonably believes that it is not necessary in the best interest of the organization to do
so, the lawyer shall refer the matter to higher authority in the organization, including, if
warranted by the circumstances, to the highest authority that can act on behalf of the
organization as determined by applicable law.

N.C. Rules of Prof] Conduct r.1.13(b) (N.C. State Bar 2017).

conferred with City Manager Wanda Page regarding the information reported to me as City
|

Attorney. Manager Page is the Chief Administrative Officer of the City of Durham and the highest
authority, other than the City Council itself, who can act on behalf of the City of Durham. The
Manager and ! agreed that the best way to address this issue from the outset was for me to
EXHIBIT

101 City Hall Plaza, Second Floor, Durham NC 2 DurhamNC.gov Follow Us @CityofDurhamNC
090060
 W24cys1218
provide this letter to the City Council, outlining the reported information as well as the potential
legal ramifications of the conduct that has been reported. To be clear-my client is the City of
Durham. While the Office of the City Attorney does sometimes represent members of the City
Council in their official capacities, it is important that each of you understands that do not serve
|

as the personal attorney for any member of the Durham City Council. As such, there is no
attorney-client relationship with respect to the information that I am about to convey, and the
information-as it was reported to me and now as am sharing it with you-is not privileged
information.

Over the weekend, received a telephone call from Planning Director Sara Young. Director
|

Young had been contacted by a developer who is working on projects in and around the City of
Durham and who has recently submitted applications for annexation and/or rezoning for City
Council consideration. The developer informed Director Young that they held a number of one-
on-one meetings recently with members of the Durham City Council in an attempt to build
support for one or more projects. The developer contends that during one of these meetings, the
developer was informed that, in order to obtain support for their project (i.e. a 'yes' vote on the
application), they would need to make a contribution to that councilmember's campaign.

1 do not know if the foregoing allegation is true. It was reported to Director Young, who, in turn,
reported it to me, and neither of us was in the subject meeting to witness the above-described
exchange. However, as counsel for the City, find it extremely alarming that such an allegation
|

has been made about a member of the Durham City Council. If such a conversation did occur,
the Councilmember involved committed a clear violation of the City's Ethics Policy. More
importantly, the Councilmember who requested a campaign contribution in exchange for voting
in a certain way, if that occurred, has violated N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-217, which is punishable as a
Class F felony. have attached a copy of this statute for your reference. Again, while do not
| |

have a legal obligation to defend individual City Councilmembers in actions involving personal
criminal conduct, it is reasonable to assume that if the developer were to file a civil action on the
basis of alleged extortion or attempted extortion, the lawsuit would claim that those actions are
imputed to the City. Further, allegations of extortion would likely cause a significant loss of public
confidence in the City's overall handling of land use matters and legislative actions. have a|

compelling professional obligation to protect the City of Durham from such collateral effects. It
should go without saying that no member of the City Council should ever demand or accept
anything of value in connection with engaging in any action or activity that is a part of the official
duties of the office. suggest that any Councilmember who has engaged in such activity consult
their own personal lawyer.

Additionally, the developer who reported the above-described conversation to Director Young
also reported that they believe that multiple members of the City Council are engaged in group
chat or text thread discussions during public hearing deliberations. Again, do not know if this
|

alleged conduct is occurring. have not personally seen such group chats or text threads during
general public hearings. And while do not believe these types of communications violate any
|

criminal statute or the Open Meetings Law (particularly if three or fewer Councilmembers are
participating on the text thread), Councilmembers "deliberating" by text or engaged in other
electronic discussions during public hearings certainly do not comport with the spirit of the North
Carolina Open Meetings Law. Councilmembers should also be advised that these types of text

101 City Hall Plaza, Second Floor, Durham NC 27701 919.560.4158 DurhamNC.gov Follow Us @CityofOurhamNC
002 :
 @ U24CVS1218
communications, if they are occurring, are, in fact, public records and subject to request by the
developer or other members of the public. If a properly-framed public records request is received,
Councilmembers must comply and produce the subject texts.

Finally, Manager Page brought to my attention today the fact that a City employee was recently
disciplined for engaging in campaign-related activities for a current City Councilmember while
on the job. Councilmembers should be aware that City employees are strictly prohibited by N.C.
Gen. Stat. 160A-169 (and by an internal personnel policy-HRM 705) from working on political
campaigns while at work and/or while using City-issued property (e.g. paper, printers,
computers). While 160A-169 and internal personnel policies do not apply to Councilmembers,
Councilmembers are prohibited from using City resources for campaign related activities by N.C.
Gen. Stat. 160A-499.3. have attached copies of these two statutes as well as the personnel
|

policy for your broader understanding. My hope is that Councilmembers will appreciate the
sensitive position of City employees and refrain from requesting that City staff engage in
campaign related activities while working in an official role for the City and/or using City-issued
property.

Thank you so much for your careful attention to the matters discussed in this letter.

With kind regards,

Kimberly M. Reberg
City Attorney

Enclosures: N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-217

N.C. Gen. Stat. 160A-169
COD Policies HRM-705 & HRM-805
N.C. Gen. Stat. 160A-499.3

Cc: Wanda S. Page, City Manager

Diana Schreiber, City Clerk

101 City Hall Plaza, Second Floor, Durham NC 27701 919.560.4158 DurhamNC.gov Follow Us @CityofDurhamNC

002 63
 @ WY 24€VS 1218
From: Rehberg, Kimberly <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 4:42 PM OPY
To: City Council Only <[email protected]>
Ce: Page, Wanda <[email protected]>; Schreiber, Diana <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Reported Potential Legal and Ethical Violations on the Part of City Council

Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Members of the Durham City Council:

As stated yesterday, my purpose in sharing what was reported to the

in my letter
Planning Director (who in turn passed along the information to me) was to take action
that found to be reasonably necessary to protect and advance the best interests of the
|

City of Durham. By sharing the information with the Council, my intent was to make
clear that the alleged conduct should not be imputed to the City of Durham, to preserve
public confidence in the City's processes, and to demonstrate for the public that
allegations of corruption are not simply "buried" if they are presented to the professional
staff. think City Manager Page and were completely aligned on these objectives.
| |

| had a conversation with Mayor O'Neal this morning regarding this information, which is
now in the hands of the City Council. She asked me how the Mayor, how the Council,
should respond to that information. cannot outline for the Council specifically what the
response should be. will say that, given that Manager Page and agreed that we had
|

an obligation to disclose the issues to the City Council as soon as we learned of them,
so, too, the City Council should take the reported allegations very seriously and act with
all due haste to address them. The City Council should be concerned about the
threats to the integrity of its work and to public confidence posed by allegations
of corruption. It is unlikely that a developer would report conduct that has no
factual basis or to maliciously cause harm, particularly a developer who regularly
brings matters before the City.

While am not | direct an investigatory process for the City Council, and it
in a position to
is not my role to determine what the outcome of any investigation should be, do think
|

that the City Council's response should be to conduct its own diligent, good faith
investigation into the allegations with great urgency. Ideally, the City Council would be
able to investigate this issue before holding development project public hearings again,
which it is scheduled to do on March 20". In terms of how the investigation might be
structured, the Council might start by having conversations internally in small groups to
try to definitively identify the Councilmember alleged to be involved and get a fuller
understanding of the reported incident. As always, in having small group discussions,
the Council should be careful not to create a quorum.

A more streamlined approach might be to have the Mayor and the Chair of the Council
Procedures Committee meet with each Councilmember to determine if any
Councilmember has factual knowledge about the alleged incident. If the City Council
can internally substantiate the reported incident, then an inquiry might entail confirming
the identity of the reporting developer and having a direct conversation with the
developer, as well. If Counc member conf
a mmsfactual knowledge of the alleged
EXH IT
 e 24cvSi2te
incident, and the Council needs additional time to talk to the developer and others
regarding the incident, any Councilmember confirming that they are implicated by the
developer's allegations could, in the interests of protecting the integrity of the City,
request an excused absence for the meeting on Monday, March 20". The City Council
would then have more time to work through the allegations and gather sufficient
information to determine what, if any, additional action should be taken by the City
Council.

While it would be ideal if the City Council could hold a closed session to have a
conversation as a group and inquire into the matter collectively, unfortunately the closed
session statute (N.C. Gen. Stat. 143-318.11, attached), specifically states that any
conversation regarding the competence, performance, character, or fitness of member a

of the Council must be held in an open meeting.

|
hope the suggestions made above are helpful to the Council in figuring out a way to
respond to the information that it has received.

Have a good evening,

Kim

Kimberly M. Rehberg, City Attorney

Pronouns: She/Her/Hers (Why Pronouns Matter)
101 City Hall Plaza
Durham, North Carolina 27701
Phone: 919.560.4158 ext. 13246
Direct Dial: 919.354.2716
Fax: 919.560.4660
[email protected]

E-mail correspondence to andfrom this sender may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Act and can be disclosed to third parties.
 COPY
RESOLUTION OF CENSURE OF COUNCIL MEMBER MONIQUE HOLSEY-HYMAN

WHEREAS, Council Member Monique Holsey-Hyman was appointed to serve as a

member of the Durham City Council on May 5", 2022; and

WHEREAS, as a Council Member, Council Member Hyman is expected to uphold the

public trust of the residents of the City of Durham by following all federal, state, and local laws
and well as City policies; and

WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 160A-169 prohibits city employees from
engaging in partisan or political activity in the workplace or with city resources, and from using
their official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an
election; and

WHEREAS, City of Durham HR Policy #705 prohibits city employees from engaging in
partisan or political activity while on-duty or with city resources, and from engaging in partisan
or political activity which would represent a conflict of interest or which would compromise the
employee's role of impartiality in his/her position; and

WHEREAS, in September of 2022, Council Member Hyman asked a city staffer to do

campaign-related research for her while on duty. After this incident, during a meeting with the
staffer and her supervisor, the city policy regarding campaign activity was clearly communicated
to Council Member Hyman; and

WHEREAS, in January of 2023, Council Member Hyman asked city staffer to do work
a

related to her political campaign. In March, the city staffer was formally disciplined for engaging
in campaign activity for Council Member Hyman while on duty and using city resources.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of

Durham hereby censures Council Member Monique Holsey-Hyman for her conduct and
condemns her actions as not meeting the standards expected of members of the City Council and
leaders of the City of Durham.

Adopted this 23" day of March, 2023.

EXHIBIT

j C
 e 24cys 121
SATANA DEBERRY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY

PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT I6
DURHAM COUNTY

AM cov
510 S. DILLARD ST.
O 919-808-3010
F 019-808-3034
8" FLOOR. DURHAM, NC, 27701

COPY
VIA EMAIL

September 19, 2023

Kimberly Rehberg
City Attorney
City of Durham

Wanda Page
City Manager
City of Durham

Mayor and City Council

City of Durham

Re: Investigation of allegations against Monique Holsey-Hyman

To All tt May Concern:

On March 27, 2023, ! asked the NC State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) to open an inquiry into allegations
made at the March 23, 2023, Durham City Council meeting. As with any investigation, an allegation or
inquiry is not on its own confirmation of a violation of the law.

BACKGROUND
On March 13, 2023, City Attorney Rehberg sent a letter to the Mayor and City Council outlining a phone
conversation with Durham Planning Director Sara Young. Director Young informed Attorney Rehberg
that she had been contacted by a local developer about concerning interactions with a council member.
The developer, later identified as Jarrod Edens, alleged that Council Member Monique Holsey-Hyman
had solicited a campaign contribution from him to secure her 'yes' vote on annexation and rezoning
applications pending before Council.

Attorney Rehberg's letter stated her alarm at the allegation and informed Council that if said allegation
were true, it was at least a violation of the City's Ethics Policy and at worst, a crime punishable as a Class
F felony under NC law. Unsurprisingly, this letter set off alarms and a flurry of telephone and electronic
communication between and amongst the Mayor, council members and staff. The communications
resulted in suggestions of sanctions and investigations and a public statement read by the Mayor at the
March 23, 2023, Durham City Council meeting. After tempers flared during the meeting, council
members were recorded by a local media outlet arguing and cursing behind the council dais.

INVESTIGATION
EXHIBIT

North Carolina Judicial Branch

j D Page 1 of 3
 05

SATANA DEBERRY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
24CvS121
PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 16
< DURHAM COUNTY

510 S. DILLARD ST, 8™ FLOOR, DURHAM, NC. 27701

R}tam COvt
O 919-808-3010
F 919-808-3034

|learned of the allegations when received a phone call from SBI Special Agent in Charge Sheila
|

Minchew on March 17, 2023. SAIC Minchew informed me that she had been contacted by Attorney
Rehberg at the request of Mayor Elaine O'Neal to investigate allegations of extortion or bribery on City
Council. As NC law only allows law enforcement agencies or the elected District Attorney to request an
SBI investigation, SAIC Minchew called to ask my direction on the matter. After discussing the
allegations and available evidence extensively with SAIC Minchew and Attorney Rehberg and given the
hearsay nature of the allegations, declined to request an investigation into the matter at that time.
|

However, after the events at the Council meeting on March 23, 2023, the now very public nature of the
allegations and the increasingly speculative nature of media reporting, made a request of the SBI to
|

open an investigation on March 27, 2023. also requested that the SBI investigate additional allegations
|

that Holsey-Hyman had improperly solicited a City of Durham employee to engage in campaign activities
on city time.

RESULTS OF SBI INVESTIGATION

On September 15, 2023, received the report of Special Agent N. Deming of the SBI Professional
Standards Division on the allegations against Council Member Holsey-Hyman.

SA Deming conducted interviews with City of Durham Mayor, Council Members, and staff. Amongst that
group, every person with whom he requested an interview consented including Holsey-Hyman. SA
-

Deming interviewed Holsey-Hyman at length. She not only willingly answered his questions, but she also
voluntarily provided documentation of her conversations with the developer, Jarrod Edens. SA Deming
reviewed text messages between Holsey-Hyman and Edens and found nothing improper. In fact, Deming
noted that Holsey-Hyman remained courteous, respectful, and forthcoming during a very stressful set of
circumstances.

Jarrod Edens, on the other hand, avoided every attempt SA Deming made to interview him. Edens did
not answer calls nor return messages left by SA Deming. When Deming did get him on the phone, Edens
agreed to an interview and then did not appear. Afterwards, Deming was contacted by an attorney
retained by Edens. To allay Edens' concerns about an in-person interview, Deming agreed to accept a
written statement from Edens and his attorney. Edens agreed but ultimately failed to provide such a
written statement. During the time in which Edens was avoiding an interview with the SBI, the
development issue under question came back up for a vote before Council and was approved without
participation by Holsey-Hyman. According to Deming, after the vote, Edens showed no interest in either
repeating or pursuing his initial allegations made to Planning Director Young.

As to the allegation that a city staffer engaged in campaign activity, Deming was able to interview the
employee in question. According to the employee, they volunteered information to Council Member
Holsey-Hyman. She did not request it either directly or indirectly. The employee received a written
reprimand for providing the information.

nak
North Carolina Judicial Branch Page 2 of 3
. +

e U 24CV61219
SATANA DEBERRY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY

PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 16
DURHAM COUNTY

DILLARD ST. 8™ FLOOR, DURHAM, NC, 27701

510 S.
O 919-808-3010
F 019-808-3034

RECOMMENDATION
Given the results of the SBI investigation, there is no probable cause to pursue charges against Council
Member Holsey-Hyman. in fact, the SBI was unable to discover any credible allegations against her at all.
There is no evidence that she solicited campaign contribution from Jarrod Edens or that she attempted
caa

to extort anything from him in exchange for her vote on his development project. There is also no
evidence that Holsey-Hyman solicited campaign work from a city employee. Additionally, there is also
no evidence that there was a coordinated effort led by any other Council Member to initiate allegations
against Holsey-Hyman.

Based on the available facts and further interviews, there is no reporting party with any credible
information in this matter. As far as state criminal issues are concerned, this matter is closed.

Sincere!

Satana Deberry
District Attorney, Prosecutorial District

cc. SAN.Deming,NCSB!
Ryan Willis, DysartWillis

North Carolina Judicial Branch Page 3 of 3

 Flie No
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 24C S
Durham In The General Court Of Justice
County
:

O District x Superior Court Division

Name Of intiff
:
Monique Holsey-Hyman : :

Address
CIVIL SUMMONS
c/o DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP, P.O. Box 711
City, State, Zip
TJALIAS AND PLURIES SUMMONS (ASSESS FEE)
Raleigh NC 27602
VERSUS G.S. 1A-1, Rules 3 and 4
Name Of Defendant(s} Date Original Summons issued
Jarrod B, Edens, et al.
Date(s) Subsequent Summons(es) issued

To Each Of The Defendant(s) Named Below:

Name And Address Of Defendant 1

Jarrod B. Edens Alternate Address

8414 Wheatstone Ln. 112 E, Main Street

Raleigh NC 27613-1477 Durham NC 27701

IMPORTANT! You have been sued! These papers are legal documents, DO NOT throw these papers out!
You have to respond within 30 days. You may want to talk with a lawyer about your case as soon as
possible, and, if needed, speak with someone who reads Engltsh and can translate these papers!
jIMPORTANTE! jSe ha entablado un proceso civil en su contra! Estos papeles son documentos legales
{NO TIRE estos papeles!
Tiene que contestar a mas tardar en 30 dias. ;Puede querer consultar con un abogado lo antes posible
acerca de su caso y, de ser necesario, hablar con alguien que lea inglés y que pueda traducir estos
documentos!
A Civil Action Has Been Commenced Against You!
You are notified to appear and answer the complaint of the plaintiff as follows:
1. Serve a copy of your written answer to the complaint upon the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney within thirty (30) days after you have been
served. You may serve your answer by delivering a copy to the plaintiff or by mailing it to the plaintiff's last known address, and
2. File the original of the written answer with the Clerk of Superior Court of the county named above.
If you fail to answer the complaint, the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Name And Address Of Plaintiffs Attomey (if none, Address Of Plaintiff) Date ubd Time

James T. Johnson
DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP Signature
3:55 PM

P.O. Box 711 Cheryl Murphy

NC
Raleigh 27602
Noon
csc [JAssistarrcsc o Clerk Of Superior Court

Date Of Endorsement Time

(J ENDORSEMENT (ASSESS FEE) CJam [Jem

This Summons was originally issued on the date indicated Signature
above and returned not served. At the request of the plaintiff,
the time within which this Summons must be served is
extended sixty (60) days. (Deputy csc O Assistant csc O Clerk Of Superior Court
NOTE TO PARTIES: Many counties have MANDATORY ARBITRATION programs in which most cases where the amount in controversy is $25,000 or
less are heard by an arbitrator before a trial. The parties will be notified if this case is assigned for mandatory arbitration, and, if
So, what procedure Is to be followed.

(Over)
AOC-CV-100, Rev. 4/18
© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 A
RETURNOF SERVICE : : : : :
: : : :
: :: : : :
: : :
:
: : :

|
certify that this Summons and a copy of the complaint were received and served as follows:

DEFENDANT 1

Date Served Time Served Name Of Defendant

Daw (jeu

LI By delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint.
C1 By leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name And Address Of Parson With Whom Copies Left (if corporalion, give title of person copies left with)

C1 Other manner of service (specify)

Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

DEFENDANT 2
Date Served Time Served Name Of Defendant
(Jam [Jem

By delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint.
C1 By leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
LD As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name And Address Of Person Wilh Whom Copies Left (if corporation, give tille of person copies left with)

LJ Other manner of service (specify)

Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

Service Fee Paid Signature Of Depuly Sheriff Making Refum

$
Date Received Name Of Sheriff (type or print}

Date Of Retum County Of Sheriff

AOC-CV-100, Side Two, Rev. 4/18

© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 File No
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 1218
Durham The General Court Of Justice
In
County O District x Superior Court Division
Name Of Plaintiff
Monique Holsey-Hyman D +: St
Address
CIVIL SUMMONS
c/o DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP, P.O. Box 711

City, State, 2ip

pe DIAUASB PLURIES SUMMONS (ASSESS FEE)
Raleigh NC 27602...
VERSUS ti (ea) G.S. 1A-1, Rules 3 and 4
Name Of Defendani(s) Date Original Summons Issued
Jarrod B, Edens, et al.
Date(s) Subsequent Summons(es) Issued

To Each Of The Defendant(s) Named Below:

Name And Address Of Defendant 1 Name And aAddress Of
Edens Investments, Inc. Alternate Address
c/o Registered Agent, Jarrod B. Edens 8414 Wheatstone Ln.
112 E. Main Street
Durham NC 27701 Raleigh NC 27613-1477

IMPORTANT! You have been sued! These papers are legal documents, DO NOT throw these papers out!
You have to respond within 30 days. You may want to talk with a lawyer about your case as soon as
possible, and, if needed, speak with someone who reads English and can translate these papers!
JIMPORTANTE! |Se ha entablado un proceso civil en su contra! Estos papeles son documentos legales.
jNO TIRE estos papeles!
Tiene que contestar a mas tardar en 30 dias. ;Puede querer consultar con un abogado lo antes posible
acerca de su caso y, de ser necesarlo, hablar con alguien que lea inglés y que pueda traducir estos
documentos!
A Civil Action Has Been Commenced Against You!
You are notified to appear and answer the complaint of the plaintiff as follows:
1. Serve a copy of your written answer to the complaint upon the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney within thirty (30) days after you have been
served. You may serve your answer by delivering a copy to the plaintiff or by mailing it to the plaintiff's last known address, and
2. File the original of the written answer with the Clerk of Superior Court of the county named above.
If you fail to answer the complaint, the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Name And Address Of Plaintiffs Allomey (if none, Address Of

James T. Johnson
DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP
"375/24
Signature
"B.SY (Jam PM

P.O. Box 711 Cheryl Murphy

Raleigh NC 27602
csc [JAssistentcsc [[] Clerk 01 Superior Court
Mommy

Date Of Endorsement Time

o ENDORSEMENT (ASSESS FEE) Clam (Jem
This Summons was originally issued on the date indicated Signature
above and returned not served. At the request of the plaintiff,
the time within which this Summons must be served is
extended sixty (60) days. fy Deputy CSC 0 Assistant CSC a Clerk Of Superior Court

NOTE TO PARTIES: Many counties have MANDATORY ARBITRATION programs in which most cases where the amount in controversy is $25,000 or
fess are heard by an arbilrator before a trial. The parties will be notified if this case is assigned for mandatory arbitration, and, if
So, what procedure is to be followed.

(Over)
AOC-CV-100, Rev. 4/18
© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 RETURNOF SERVICE
: : :
:
:

|
certify that this Summons and a copy of the complaint were received and served as follows:

OEFENDANT 1

Date Served Time Served Name Of Defendant

[Jam (jem

By delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint.
CJ By leaving a copy of the summons and compfaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
CJ As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name And Address Of Person With Whom Copies Left (if corporation, give litle of person copies felt with)

(J Other manner of service (specity)

Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

DEFENDANT 2
Date Served Time Served Name Of Defendant
(Jam [jem

By delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint.
C By leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
[J As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name And Address Of Person With Whom Copies Left (if corporation, give tile of person copies left with)

Other manner of service (specify)

([] Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

Service Feo Paid Signature Of Deputy Sheriff Making Retum

$
Date Raceived Name Of Sheriff (type or prin)

Date Of Return County Of Sheriff

AOC-CV-100, Side Two, Rev. 4/18

© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
File No
24CVS 1218
Durham In The General Court Of Justice
County O District x Superior Court Division
Name Of Plaintif
:
Monique Hotsey-Hyman

CIVIL SUMMONS
Address
c/o DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP, P.O. Box 711
EJALIAS AND PLURIES SUMMONS (ASSESS FEE)
City, Stale, Zip

Raleigh NC 27602 E :
tL

em
VERSUS G.S. 1A-1, Rules 3 and 4

Name Of Defendani(s) Date Original Summons Issued

Jarrod B. Edens, et al.
Date(s) Subsequent Summons(es) Issued

To Each Of The Defendant(s) Named Below:

Name And Address Of Defendant 1

Sara M. Young, Individually and in her official capacity as Alternate Address

City of Durham Planning Director 101 City Hall Plaza
117 Beaconsfield Ct.
Durham NC 27703-6799 Durham NC 27701

IMPORTANTI You have been sued! These papers are legal documents, DO NOT throw these papers out!
You have to respond within 30 days. You may want to talk with a lawyer about your case as soon as
possible, and, if needed, speak with someone who reads English and can translate these papers!
j{IMPORTANTE! 1Se ha entablado un proceso civil en su contra! Estos papeles son documentos legales
jNO TIRE estos papeles!
Tiene que contestar a mas tardar en 30 dias. jPuede querer consultar con un abogado Io antes posible
acerca de su caso y, de ser necesario, hablar con alguien que lea inglés y que pueda traducir estos
documentos!
A Clvil Action Has Been Commenced Against Youl
You are notified to appear and answer the complaint of the plaintiff as follows:
1. Serve a copy of your written answer to the complaint upon the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney within thirty (30) days after you have been
served, You may serve your answer by delivering a copy to the plaintiff or by mailing it to the plaintiff's last known address, and
2. File the original of the written answer with the Clerk of Superior Court of the county named above.

If you fail to answer the complaint, the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Name And Address Of Plaintiff's Attomey (if none, Address Of Plaintiff) Date k Time

James T. Johnson
LLP
3 5[24 3 5 Oam PM

DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, Signet

P.O. Box 711 Cheryl Murphy

NC 27602
Raleigh
4
Deputy CSC (J Assistant csc Cte Of Superior Court

Date Of Endorsement Time

ENDORSEMENT (ASSESS FEE) Clam [Jem
This Summons was originally issued on the date indicated Signature
above and returned not served, At the request of the plaintiff,
tha time within which this Summons must be served is
extended sixty (60) days. Depuy csc csc Clerk of Superior Court

NOTE TO PARTIES: Many counties have MANDATORY ARBITRATION programs in which most cases where the amount in controversy is $25,000 or
less are heard by an arbitrator before a trial. The parties will be nolilied if this case is assigned for mandatory arbitration, and, if
$o, what procedure is to be followed.

(Over)
AOC-CV-100, Rev. 4/18
© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 A
RETURN SERVICE :
:
: :
:

|
certify that this Summons and a copy of the complaint were received and served as follows:

DEFENDANT 1

Date Served Time Served Name Of Defendant

[Jam Opm
o By delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint.
By leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
CO As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name And Address Of Person With Whom Copies Left (if corporation, give litle of person copies left with)

0 Other manner of service (specify)

Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

DEFENDANT 2
Dale Served Time Served Name Of Defendant
[Jam (Jem

By delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint.
By leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abade of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name And Address Of Person With Whom Coples Left (if corporation, give title of person copies left with)

Oo ther manner of service (specify)

Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

Service Fee Paid Signature Of Deputy Sheriff Making Retum

$
Dale Received Name Of Sheriff (type or print}

Date Of Retum County Of Sheriff

AOC-CV-100, Side Two, Rev. 4/18

© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 V
24CV51218
File Na
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Durham In The General Court Of Justice
County District Superior Court Division
Name Of Plaintiff
Monique Holsey-Hyman :

Address
CIVIL SUMMONS
c/o DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP, P.O. Box 711
City, State, Zip
CALIAS AND PLURIES SUMMONS (ASSESS FEE)
Raleigh 276020
VERSUS G.S. tht, Rules 3 and 4
Name Of Defendant(s) Date Original Summons Issued
Jarrod B. Edens, et al.
Date(s) Subsequent Summons(es) Issued

To Each Of The Defendant(s) Named Below:

Name And Address Of Defendant 1 2
Kimberly M. Rehberg, Individually and in her official capacity as Alternate Address
the City Attorney for Durham 101 City Hall Plaza
8306 Rue Cassini Ct.
Raleigh NC 27615-3360 Durham NC 27701

IMPORTANT! You have been sued! These papers are legal documents, DO NOT throw these papers out!
You have to respond within 30 days. You may want to talk with a lawyer about your case as soon as
possible, and, if needed, speak with someone who reads English and can translate these papers!
jIMPORTANTE! [Se ha entablado un proceso civil en su contra! Estos papeles son documentos legales.
{NO TIRE estos papeles!
Tiene que contestar a mas tardar en 30 dias. ;Puede querer consultar con un abogado lo antes posible
acerca de su caso y, de ser necesario, hablar con alguien que lea inglés y que pueda traducir estos
documentos!
A Civil Action Has Been Commenced Against You!
You are notified to appear and answer the complaint of the plaintiff as follows:
1. Serve a copy of your written answer to the complaint upon the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney within thirty (30) days after you have been
served, You may serve your answer by delivering a copy to the plaintiff or by mailing it to the plaintiff's last known address, and
2. File the original of the written answer with the Clerk of Superior Court of the county named above.
If you fail to answer the complaint, the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Name And Address Of Plaintif's Attomey (if none, Address Of Plaintif Oate isu
James T. Johnson 2 Cam PM

DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP Signature

P.O. Box 711 Chery! Mu

NC 27602
Raleigh Deputycsc [[JAssistentcsc [[] Cle Of Superior Court

Date Of Endorsement Time

(J ENDORSEMENT (ASSESS FEE)

issued on
Clam [Jem
This Summons was originally the date indicated Signature
above and returned not served. At the request of the plaintiff,
the time within which this Summons must be served is
extended sixty (60) days. ]Oepuycsc Assistant csc Clerk Of Superior Court

NOTE TO PARTIES: Many counties have MANDATORY ARBITRATION programs in which most cases where the amount in controversy is $25,000 or
less are heard by an arbitrator before a trial. The partes will be notilied if this case is assigned for mandatory arbitration, and, if
So, what procedure is fo be followed.

(Over)
AOC-CV-100, Rev. 4/18
© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 RETURNOF SERVICE :

:
:
:
:
:
:
: :
: :
:
: : : : : :
: :

|
certify that this Summons and a copy of the complaint were received and served as follows:

DEFENDANT 1

Date Served Time Served Name Of Defendant

Cjam (Jem

By delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint.
(J By teaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name And Address Of Person With Whom Copies Left {if corporation, give litle of person copies left with)

LJ Other manner of service (specify)

( Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

DEFENDANT 2
Date Served Time Served Name Of Defendant
Clam (Jem

LJ 8y delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint.
C1 By leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
C0 As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name And Address Of Person With Whom Copies Leff (if corporation, give title of person copies left with)

Other manner of service (specfy)

(CD Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

Service Fee Paid Signature Of Depuly Sheriff Making Retum

$
Date Received Neme Of Sheriff (type or print)

Date Of Return County Of Sheriff

AOC-CV-100, Side Two, Rev. 4/18

© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
File No
24CVS 218
Durham In The General Court Of Justice
County CL District x Superior Court Division
Name Of Plaintiff
Monique Holsey-Hyman
Addross
c/o DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP, P.O. Box 71 1
2: 5° CIVIL SUMMONS
CIALIAS AND PLURIES SUMMONS (ASSESS FEE)
City, State, Zip

Raleigh NC 27602 :
VERSUS GS. 1A-1, Rules 3 and 4
Name Of Defendani(s} Bote. Origins! Summons Issued
Jarrod B. Edens, et al.
Date(s) Subsequent Summons(es) issued

To Each Of The Defendant(s) Named Below:

Name And Adoress Of Defendant 1 Name And 0f Npfartark?
Jillian N. Johnson, Individually and in her official capacity as a Alternate Address
member of the Durham City Council 101 City Hall Plaza
902 Arnette Ave.
Durham NC 27701-3109 Durham NC 27701

IMPORTANT! You have been sued! These papers are legal documents, DO NOT throw these papers out!
You have to respond within 30 days. You may want to talk with a lawyer about your case as soon as
possible, and, if needed, speak with someone who reads English and can translate these papers!
iIMPORTANTE! ;Se ha entablado un proceso civil en su contra! Estos papeles son documentos legales
jNO TIRE estos papeles!
Tiene que contestar a mas tardar en 30 dias. jPuede querer consultar con un abogado Io antes posible
acerca de su caso y, de ser necesarlo, hablar con aiguien que lea inglés y que pueda traducir estos
documentos!
A Civil Action Has Been Commenced Against Youl
You are notified to appear and answer the complaint of the plaintiff as follows:
1. Serve a copy of your written answer to the complaint upon the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney within thirty (30) days after you have been
served, You may serve your answer by delivering a copy to the plaintiff or by mailing it to the pfaintiff's last known address, and
2. File the original of the written answer with the Clerk of Superior Court of the county named above.
If you fail to answer the complaint, the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Name And Address Of Plaintiffs Altomey (if none, Address Of Piaintf) Date issu

James T. Johnson
DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP Signature
3:56 Om %
P.O. Box 711 Cheryl Murphy
NC 27602
Raleigh Doputy CSC o Assistant csc (LJ Clerk OF Superior Court

Date Of Endorsement Time

ENDORSEMENT (ASSESS FEE) (Jam Olu
This Summons was originally issued on the date Indicated Signature
above and returned not served. At the request of the plaintiff,
tha time within which this Summons must be served is
extended sixty (60) days.
([] Deputy csc Assistant csc Clerk oF Superior Court

NOTE TO PARTIES: Many counties have MANDATORY ARBITRATION programs in which most cases where the amount in controversy Is $25,000 or
less are heard by an arbitrator before a trial. The parties will be notified if this case is assigned for mandatory arbitration, and, if
$0, what procedure Is to be followed.

(Over)
AOC-CV-100, Rev. 4/18
© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 ty
RETURNOFSERVICE : : : :
:
:

|
certify that this Summons and a copy of the complaint were received and served as follows:

DEFENDANT 1

Date Served Time Served Name Of Defendant

[Jam (lpm

By delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint.
(J By leaving a copy of the summens and complaint at the dwelling house or usual piace of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
LD As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name And Address Of Person With Whom Copies Left (if corporation, give litle of person copies teft with)

Other manner of service (specify)

Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

DEFENDANT 2
Date Served Time Served Name Of Defendant
[Jam (lpm

By delivering to the defendant named abave a copy of the summons and complaint.
By teaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name Ard Address Of Person With Whom Coples Leff (if corporation, give litle of person copies 'fet with)

Other manner of service (specify)

D Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

Service Fee Paid Signature Of Deputy Sheriff Making Reflum

$
Date Received Name Of Sheriff (type or print)

Date Of Retum County Of Sheriff

AQC-CV-100, Side Two, Rev. 4/18

© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 File
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Durham In The General Court Of Justice
County District x Superior Court Division
Name Of Pisintiff
Monique Holsey-Hyman :
Address
CIVIL SUMMONS
c/o DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP, P.O. Box 711

City, State, Zip

[ALIAS AND PLURIES SUMMONS (ASSESS FEE)
Raleigh NC 27602
VERSUS Can) GS. 1A-1, Rules 3 and 4
Name Of Defendani(s) Date Original Summons Issued
Jarrod B. Edens, et al.
Date(s) Subsequent Summons(es) issued

To Each Of The Defendant(s) Named Below:

Name And Address Of Defendant 1 Defendant 2
Mark A. Middleton, Individually and in his official capacity as a Alternate Address
member of the Durham City Council and Mayor Pro Tempore 101 City Hall Plaza
3018 Appling Way
Durham NC 27703-9276 Durham NC 27701

IMPORTANTI You have been sued! These papers are legal documents, DO NOT throw these papers out!
You have to respond within 30 days. You may want to talk with a lawyer about your case as soon as
possible, and, if needed, speak with someone who reads English and can translate these papers!
jIMPORTANTE! |Se ha entablado un proceso civil en su contra! Estos papeles son documentos legales.
jNO TIRE estos papeles!
Tiene que contestar a mas tardar en 30 dias. jPuede querer consultar con un abogado lo antes posible
acerca de su caso y, de ser necesario, hablar con alguien que lea inglés y que pueda traducir estos
documentos!
A Civil Action Has Been Commenced Against Youl
You are notified to appear and answer the complaint of the plaintiff as follows:
1. Serve a copy of your written answer to the complaint upon the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney within thirty (30) days after you have been
served. You may serve your answer by delivering a copy to the plaintiff or by mailing it to the plaintiff's last known address, and
2. File the original of the written answer with the Clerk of Superior Court of the county named above.
If you fait to answer the complaint, the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the complaint.

Name And Address Of Piaintiffs Atlomey (if none, Address Of Plaintif} Date

James T. Johnson 2 "3: 55

DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP Signature

P.O. Box 7] 1 Cheryl Murphy

NC 27602
Raleigh epuy esc [[JAssistenrcsc [] Clerk OF Supertor Court

Date Of Endorsement Time

O ENDORSEMENT (ASSESS FEE) Olam Clem

This Summons was originally issued on the date indicated Signature
above and returned not served. At the request of the plaintiff,
the time within which this Summons must be served is
extended sixty (60) days. Deputy csc O Assistant csc Cierk Of Superior Court

NOTE TO PARTIES: Many counties have MANDATORYy ARBITRATION programs in which most cases where the amount in controversy is $25,000 or
fess are heard by an arbitrator before a trial. The parties will be notified if this case is ass gned for mandatory arbitration, and, if
$0, what procedure is to be followed.

(Over)
AOC-CV-100, Rev. 4/18
© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 O O
RETURNOFSERVICE : : : :

|
certify that this Summons and a copy of the complaint were received and served as follows:

DEFENDANT 1

Date Served Time Served Name Of Defendant

q AM O PM
o By delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint.
By leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
C1 As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name And Address Of Person Wilh Whom Copies Left (if corporation, give litle of person copies left with)

(J Other manner of service (specify)

Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

DEFENDANT 2
Date Served Time Served Name Of Defendant
Clam Oru
o By delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint.
By leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
CD As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name And Address Of Person With Whom Copies Left (if corporation, give title of person coples left with)

Other manner of service (specify)

Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

Service Fee Paid Signature Of Deputy Sheriff Making Retum

$
Date Received Name Of Sheriff (type orr prini)

Dale Of Retum County Of Sheriff

AOC-CV-100, Side Two, Rev. 4/18

© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA »"'"240V5 1218
Durham In The General Court Of Justice
County CJ District [X} Superior Court Division
Name Of Plaintif
Monique Holsey-Hyman :

Address
CIVIL SUMMONS
c/o DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP, P.O. Box n 1

CIALIAS AND PLURIES SUMMONS (ASSESS FEE)

City, State, Zip
Raleigh NC : 27602
VERSUS G.S. 1A-1, Rules 3 and 4
Name Of Defendant(s) Date Original Summons Issued
Jarrod B. Edens, et al.
Date(s) Subsequent Summans(es) issued

To Each Of The Defendant(s) Named Below:

Name And Address Of Defendant 1 Name And Address Of Defendont 2
City of Durham
c/o City Manager, Wanda Page
101 City Hall Plaza
Durham NC 27701

IMPORTANT! You have been sued! These papers are legal documents, DO NOT throw these papers out!
You have to respond within 30 days. You may want to talk with a lawyer about your case as soon as
possible, and, if needed, speak with someone who reads English and can translate these papers!
}IMPORTANTE! ;Se ha entablado un proceso civil en su contral Estos papeles son documentos legales.
}NO TIRE estos papeles!
Tlene que contestar a mas tardar en 30 dias. ;Puede querer consultar con un abogado lo antes posible
acerca de su caso y, de ser necesario, hablar con alguien que lea inglés y que pueda traducir estos
documentos!
A Givil Action Has Been Commenced Against You!
You are notified to appear and answer the complaint of the plaintiff as follows:
1 Serve a copy of your written answer to the complaint upon the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney within thirty (30) days after you have been
served. You may serve your answer by delivering a copy to the plaintiff or by mailing it to the plaintiff's last known address, and
2. File the original of the written answer with the Clerk of Superior Court of the county named above.
If you fall to answer the complaint, the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Name And Address Of Pisintff's Atomey (if none, Address Of Plaintiff) Date Issue Time

James T. Johnson
DeMent Askew Johnson & Marshall, LLP
3 Is
Signature"
Jay Cm PM

P.O. Box 711

NC 27602
Cheryl Murphy
Raleigh Deputy CSC Assistant CSC Clerk OF Superior Court

Date Of Endorsement Time

(ENDORSEMENT (ASSESS FEE) (Jam [Jem

This Summons was originally issued on the date indicated Signature
above and returned not served. At the request of the plaintiff,
the time within which this Summons must be served is
extended sixty (60) days. deputy csc [[] Assistant CSc LD clerk oF Superior Court

NOTE TO PARTIES: Many counties have MANDATORY ARBITRATION programs in which most cases where the amount in controversy is $25,000 or
fess are heard by an arbitrator before a trial. The parties will be notified if this case Is assigned for mandatory arbitration, and, if
so, what procedure Is to be followed.

(Over)
AOC-CV-100, Rev. 4/18
© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 RETURNOF SERVICE :
: : :
: :
:
:
::

|
certify that this Summons and a copy of the complaint were received and served as follows:

DEFENDANT 1

Date Served Time Served Name Of Defendat

Olam [lpm

By delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and compiaint.
o By leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name And Address Of Person With Whom Copies Left (if corporation, give title of person copies left with)

Other manner of service (specify)

C1 Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

DEFENDANT 2
Date Served Time Served Name Of Defendant
Oam Oem

C By delivering to the defendant named above a copy of the summons and complaint.
(C1 By leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
As the defendant is a corporation, service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person named
below.
Name And Address Of Person Wilh Whom Copies Loft (if corporation, give title of person copies left with)

C1 Other manner of service (specify)

Defendant WAS NOT served for the following reason:

Service Fea Paid Signature Of Deputy Sheriff Making Retum

$
Date Received Name Of Sheriff (type or print)

Date Of Retum County Of Sheriff

AOC-CV-100, Side Two, Rev. 4/18

© 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts
 File No.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 24 CVS 1218
Judgment Abstract No.
DURHAM County
Judgment Docket Book And Page No.

TOTAL RECEIPT AMOUNT $

200.00 CIVIL RECEIPTING FORM

Payer Name: MONIQUE HOLSEY-HYMAN VS JARROD B. EDENS ET AL

(Party to case) Last Name First Name Middle Name

Payee Name:
DEMENT ASKEW & JOHNSONgg
(Paid by whom, e.g,,nameof Last Name First Name Middle Name
attomey. interested party, etc.)

Flag for VCAP = YES Flag for VCAP = NO

FILING FEES: FILING FEES:
[XJ (CVSC) Superior $ 200.00 [](CDDC) Divorce/DV Center Fund $ 225.00
(](CVDC) District $ 150.00 ($150 filing fee + $75 DV Center Fund)
[-](CDDC) with former name resumption $ 235.00
[-](CVMC) Small Claim 96,00
(+$10.00 to 21400)
(CVAC) Appeal Magistrate (Mag) to DC
-
146.00
(CVDC) Divorce from Bed & Board $ 150.00
(CVBC) Business Court $ 1.300.00
Registrations 'R' (21400) $
(Account Code If City Facility )
Cother $
Transfer of jurisdiction from one court to another within the same
[CJ MISC FILING FEE (21435) $
county
[(] From Mag to DC (21220-$50.00, 22220-$4.00) $ 54.00
From OC to SC (21120) $ 50.00
[] MISC FILING FEE (21435) $
SERVICE FEES: SERVICE FEES:
(JWRIT OF EXECUTION (21430) $ WRIT OF POSSESSION (21400)
(when a writ of possession is on a non-monetary judgment or old book
O WRIT OF POSSESSION (21430) $
and page is in existence)
SHERIFF (22515) $
[] Other Agency Service Acct.
(] SHERIFF (22515) $
Other Agency Service Acct $
ALIAS & PLURIES SUMMONS and/or ENDORSEMENTS
ALIAS & PLURIES SUMMONS and/or ENDORSEMENTS
O21455 $ 21455 $ 15.00
MISCELLANEOUS FEES: MISCELLANEOUS FEES:
ARBITRATION APPEAL (24310) $ (] ARBITRATION FEES (24311) $
MOTIONNOTICE OF HEARING (21450) (Only if CVD)
CONFESS JUDGMENT (21400) MOTION/NOTICE OF HEARING (21450) $ 20.00

COPY (21410) CONFESS JUDGMENT (21400) $ 25.00

COPY (21410) $
(OSA) OUT OF STATE ATTY. $
SUPPLEMENTAL PRO. (21400) $ {] SUPPLEMENTAL PRO. (21400) $ 30.00

TRANSCRIPTS (21440) $ {] CcOTHER (ACCT # ) $

OTHER REFUND/OVERPAYMENT (29100)

CI (ACCT # $
REFUND/OVERPAYMENT (29100) $ JUDGMENT PAYMENT:
JUDGMENT PAYMENT: (Abstracted) (CV OR M) [] Old Docketed -
Full or Partial (26120)
Full (26115) $ (J From Sheriff No Execution Sale (26120)
-

Partial (26115) $ (CV clerk to manually add payment(s) to JA)

DEPOSITS: DEPOSITS:
RENT BONDS (26220)
[] RENT BONDS (26220) $
CIVIL SURPLUS FUNDS (26600)
APPROVAL:
REVIEWED BY: MURPHY LI CIVIL TRUST RECEIPT (26310) $

DATE: 03/05/2024 [] CIVIL BONDS (26210)

CLAIM OF LIEN BOND (26210)
CHECK # 41076; COPIES GIVEN O CONDEMNATIONS (26130) $
DISPUTED FUNDS (26600)
INTERPLEADER (26600)
AOC-FS-3900, Rev. 12/22, © 2022 Administrative Office of the Courts
 6 ra DURHAM COUNTY CLERK OF COURT

§118667 03/05/24 16:03:27

PAYOR: HOLSEY-HYMAN V J ETAL

PAYEE: PD BY TEMENT ASKEWS JOHNSON
CASE#: 24CVS001218 UCAFrY
CITAH:

21120 SC-CIVIL FEES 179.05

21124 SC-CV LAA FEES
24681 JUD TECH & FAC 4.0
22120 CO FAC FEE S CV 16.00

TOTAL PAIB 200.00

CO TENDERED 200.00
CHANGE .04

1715 IB CBIPTH

BURHAM COUNTY CLERK OF COURT

§118447 03/05/24 16:073:27

PAYOR: HOLSEY-HYMAN V EDENS,J ETAL

PAYEE: PD BY DEMENT ASKEWSJOHNSON
CASE: 24CVS001218 UCAPsY
CITAW:

21120 SC-CIVIL FEES 179.05

21124 SC-CV LAA FEES
24681 JUD TECH & FAC 4.00
22120 CO FAC FEE S CV 16.00

TOTAL PAID 200.00

CO TENDERED 200.00
CHANGE .4
1715 ID CSIPTH
 File No.

24CVS1218
LEAD DOCUMENT
FOR SCANNING

AUDIT TRAIL

Date Filmed Description Film No

AOC-G-113, Rev. 6/20

© 2020 Administrative Office of the Courts
 This page shall remain blank.

AOC-G-113, Side Two, Rev. 6/20

© 2020 Administrative Office of the Courts