By: Kyle Bristow, Esq.
On August 8, 2011, David Yeagley of Oklahoma filed suit against Jeffrey Imm and Daryle Lamont Jenkins in the District Court of Oklahoma County of Oklahoma for allegedly civilly conspiring and tortiously interfering with his contract to speak at the New Century Foundation’s American Renaissance February 2010 conference.
Tortious interference occurs when a tortfeasor (1) knows of the existence of a contract between the plaintiff and a third party, (2) intentionally or recklessly causes without privilege the contract to be breached, and (3) proximately causes the plaintiff to suffer injury as a result.
Civil conspiracy occurs when a tortfeasor (1) intentionally or recklessly enters into an agreement with a third party (2) to commit an unlawful act, and (3) proximately causes the plaintiff to suffer injury as a result.
Yeagley was represented by Oklahoma Attorney W. Dan Nelson and Texan Attorney Joe Sibley; Imm and Jenkins represented themselves without the assistance of attorneys. The lawsuit sought at least $10,000.00 in damages, but not more than $75,000.00. The reason why the damages were voluntarily capped by the plaintiff is because the cap prevented the defendants from removing the lawsuit from state to federal court through diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction occurs when there is complete diversity between the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ state residencies and the lawsuit seeks over $75,000.00 in damages. The first prong was satisfied through fate; the second prong was prevented from occurring through legal ingenuity.
The reason why state court would arguably be better for the case to be litigated is because state court judges are elected by the public or appointed by the governor and Oklahoma is a conservative state—and would therefore have conservative judges—, while federal judges are appointed by the president of the United States with the consent of the U.S. Senate—and as a result, the federal court that could have otherwise exercised diversity jurisdiction has judges appointed by Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. In theory, a liberal judge would be more likely to rule in favor of the leftist defendants.
It is called “forum shopping” for attorneys to engage in efforts to have their case litigated in a court most likely to render a favorable judgment, and this is an excellent method by which to set the stage for a lawsuit.
According to the complaint filed by Yeagley’s attorneys, the case is “about a Native American patriot who has chosen to take a stand against the enemies of America and the enemies of freedom who promote violence and anarchy.” Describing the defendants as “openly tied to Communists,” the complaint alleges that Imm and Jenkins and their co-conspirators contacted hotels retained to host the American Renaissance conference and “used threats of murder, violence, and other tactics to induce those hotels to breach their contractual agreement to host Plaintiff’s speaking engagement.” The preliminary statement of the complaint palpably declares the intent of the lawsuit: “These terrorists must now be brought to answer for their actions in Oklahoma.”[More]
