Ahmed Al-Menhali Lawsuit Against Fairfield Inn

Case: 1:17-cv-01089-SO Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/24/17 1 of 28.
PageID #: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
AHMED AL-MENHALI )
c/o Friedman and Gilbert ) Case No.
55 Public Square, Ste 1055 )
Cleveland, OH 44113 ) Judge
)
-and- ) Magistrate Judge
)
TAGHRID MILKI ) COMPLAINT
c/o Friedman and Gilbert )
55 Public Square, Ste 1055 )
Cleveland, OH 44113 )
)
Plaintiffs, ) (JURY DEMAND ENDORSED
) HEREON)
v. )
)
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC )
dba Fairfield Inn and Suites )
c/o Corporate Creations Network )
119 E. Court Street )
Cincinnati, OH 45202 )
)
-and- )
)
MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES )
dba Fairfield Inn and Suites )
c/o Corporate Creations Network )
119 E. Court Street )
Cincinnati, OH 45202 )
)
-and- )
)
INN ON THE RIVERS EDGE, LP, )
dba Fairfield Inn and Suits )
c/o Michele J. Ruta )
7704 Milan Road )
Sandusky, OH 44870 )
)
-and - )
)
Case: 1:17-cv-01089-SO Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/24/17 2 of 28. PageID #: 2
FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES AVON, )

39050 Colorado Avenue )
Avon, Ohio )
)
-and- )
)
ALEXIS SILVA )
3609 Meadowbrook Dr. )
Lorain, OH 44052 )
)
-and- )
)
LAURA ACTON-BELL )
33715 Schwartz Rd )
Avon, Ohio 44011 )
)
-and- )
)
OFFICER HORTOBAGYI )
c/o Avon Police Department )
36145 Detroit Ave )
Avon, OH 44011 )
)
-and- )
)
LT. DAN FISCHBACH )
36145 Detroit Ave )
Avon, OH 44011 )
)
-and- )
)
OFFICER BARTON )
36145 Detroit Ave )
Avon, OH 44011 )
)
-and- )
)
OFFICER SIDOR )
36145 Detroit Ave )
Avon, OH 44011 )
)
2
-and- )
)
OFFICER SMITH )
36145 Detroit Ave )
Avon, OH 44011 )
)
-and- )
)
OFFICER GOSCEWSKI )
36145 Detroit Ave )
Avon, OH 44011
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
1. In June 2016, Ahmed Al-Menhali, a citizen of the United Arab Emirates, was
temporarily residing in Cleveland to receive medical treatment at the Cleveland Clinic. On June
29, 2016, Mr. Al-Menhali experienced the worst aspects of American Islamophobia and racism
when Defendants Silva and Acton-Belle, in their capacity as employees of Defendant Marriot
International Inc., Marriot Hotel Services and their subsidiary companies, falsely accused him of
pledging allegiance to ISIS based solely on the facts that he was an Arab man, wearing
traditional dress and speaking Arabic.
2. The Defendant Avon Police Officers failed to investigate or deescalate Defendants
Silvas and Acton-Belles false allegations, and instead summarily attacked Mr. Al-Menhali with
an unjustified SWAT-style assault. The Defendant Avon Police Officers violently approached Mr.
Al-Menhali with weapons fixed upon him, used excessive force against him, and detained him
without probable cause and without any legal justification.
3
3. As a direct and proximate cause of the false accusations and unjustified assault,
Mr. Al-Menhali suffered severe emotional and physical distress which triggered a stroke. He
also suffered great financial losses based on the loss of significant business after the false
accusations and violent assault by the police was widely televised and publicized both in the
United States and the United Arab Emirates.
4. The illegal and offensive conduct of Defendants Silva and Acton-Belle was the
direct and proximate result of the negligent hiring, training, and supervision of their employer,
Defendant Marriot International Inc., Marriot Hotel Services and thier franchisees and
subsidiaries.
5. The Marriot is a global provider of lodging and entertainment and along with its
Fairfield Inn franchisee owed Plaintiff Al-Menhali the duty to act without discrimination,
intolerance, ignorance, poor training, bias, prejudice, bigotry and unlawfulness.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. Diversity matter jurisdiction is conferred under 28 U.S.C. 1332.
7. The matter in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000 and the parties are
citizens of different states and/or countries.
8. This action alleges causes of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, as well as the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and pendent claims
arising under the laws of the State of Ohio.
9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants Marriot International Inc.,
Marriott Hotel Services, Fairfield Inn and Suites Avon, Inn of Rivers Edge, LP, Silva, and Acton-
4
Bell, Hortobagyi, Fischbach, Barton, Sidor, Smith, and Goscewski, as this lawsuit is being
brought in a District where at least one of the Defendants does business.
10. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Ohio, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391
(b)(1) & (2), as this is a judicial district where at least one Defendant does business and is a
District in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.
PARTIES
11. At all times material herein, Plaintiffs Ahmed Al-Menhali and Taghrid Milki were
United Arab Emirates citizens and were legally in the United States while Al-Menhali sought
medical treatment.
12. At all times material herein, Defendant Marriot International Inc. was and is a
Delaware Corporation, with its principle place of business at 10400 Fernwood Road, Bethesda,
Maryland, 20817, operating in the State of Ohio under and by virtue of the laws of the State of
Ohio with offices, hotels or businesses in the State of Ohio.
13. At all times material herein, Defendant Marriot Hotel Services was and is a
Corporation, with its principle place of business at 1221 22nd Street, NW, Washington, DC,
20037, operating in the State of Ohio under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Ohio with
offices, hotels or businesses in the State of Ohio.
14. At all times material herein, Defendant Inn on the Rivers Edge, LP is a limited
partnership organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Ohio with
offices, hotels or businesses in the State of Ohio.
5
15. At all times material herein, Defendant Fairfield Inn and Suits Avon was and is an
Ohio entity, with its principle place of business located at 39050 Colorado Avenue, Avon, Lorain
County, Ohio.
16. At all times material herein, Defendant Alexis Silva lived and worked in Lorain
County, Ohio.
17. At all times material herein, Defendant Laura Acton-Bell lived and worked in
Lorain County, Ohio.
18. At all times material herein, Defendants Marriot International Inc., Marriot Hotel
Services, and Inn on the Rivers Edge, LP, owned, operated, controlled, maintained, managed,
supervised, handled reservations for and/or were otherwise responsible for Defendant Fairfield
Inn and Suites Avon.
19. At all times material herein, Defendants Inn on the Rivers Edge, LP and Fairfield
Inn and Suites Avon were the agents/or joint venturers of Marriott Hotel Services and Marriot
International Inc., and each other, and at all times material herein were, as such, acting within the
course, scope and authority of said agency, and/or venture, and that Marriot International Inc.,
when acting as a principal, was negligent in the selection, hiring, training, and supervision of
such and every other defendants as an agent and/or joint venturer. Additionally, Defendants
Marriott Hotel Services., Inn on the Rivers Edge, LP, and Fairfield Inn and Suites were
associated entities with the goal of carrying out a specific enterprise for profit. Marriot
International Inc., Marriott Hotel Services, and Inn on the Rivers Edge, LP had a community of
interest in the Fairfield Inn and Suites Avon, a proprietary interest in the Fairfield Inn and Suites
6
Avon, and right to govern policies of the Fairfield Inn and Suites Avon, and they shared in the
profits and losses of the Fairfield Inn and Suites Avon.
20. At all times material herein, each of the non-police Defendants were the agents or
employees of, and/or working in concert with, his/her co-Defendants and was acting within the
course and scope of such agency, employment, and/or concerted activity.
21. To the extent certain acts and omissions were perpetrated by certain non-police
Defendants, the remaining Defendant(s) confirmed and ratified said acts and omissions.
22. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants Hortobagyi, Fischbach, Barton, Sidor,
Smith and Goscewski were employed as Police Officers by the City of Avon, Ohio and were
acting in their capacity as officers for the City of Avon under the color of state law.
23. Defendant Officer Hortobagyi, at all times relevant herein, was employed as a
Police Officer by the City of Avon, and was acting under color of state law. He is being sued in
his individual as well as official capacity.
24. Defendant Lt. Fischbach, at all times relevant herein, was employed as a Police
Officer by the City of Avon, and was acting under color of state law. He is being sued in his
individual as well as official capacity.
25. Defendant Officer Barton, at all times relevant herein, was employed as a Police
26. Defendant Officer Sidor, at all times relevant herein, was employed as a Police
7
27. Defendant Officer Smith, at all times relevant herein, was employed as a Police
28. Defendant Officer Goscewski, at all times relevant herein, was employed as a
Police Officer by the City of Avon, and was acting under color of state law. He is being sued in
his individual as well as official capacity.
29. Wherever reference is made in this Complaint to any conduct by Defendants, such
references shall also be deemed to mean the conduct of each of the Defendants, acting
individually, jointly, and severally.
FACTS
30. Plaintiff Al-Menhali, 41 years of age, and his wife, Plaintiff Milki are citizens of
the United Arab Emirates. They were temporarily living in the United States during the spring
and summer of 2016 while Al-Menahli received medical treatment at the Cleveland Clinic.
31. On June 29, 2016, Plaintiff Al-Menhali went to the Fairfield Inn & Suites in Avon,
Ohio, to seek accommodations while the Republican National Convention was held in
Cleveland.
32. Plaintiff Al-Menhali was wearing traditional UAE national dress a kandura
(robe), a headscarf and headband. Plaintiff always wears his traditional clothing during his
travels and has never before encountered a problem.
33. At the Fairfield Inn, a franchisee of Marriott Hotel Services and Marriot
International Inc., Plaintiff Al-Menhali spoke with Defendant Silva, who was at the hotel desk,
asking for recommendations for extended stay in the hotel. After some conversation with Al-
8
Menhali, Defendant Acton-Bell came out front to help while Defendant Silva went to the back
office.
34. Plaintiff was told that there was no available space for his extended stay at the
Fairfield Inn and Suites. Plaintiff asked Defendants for extended stay options at other hotel
properties.
35. At 5:53 on June 29, 2016, the Avon Police Department received a 911 call from a
woman who said she was calling on behalf of her sister, a desk clerk (Defendant Silva) at the
Fairfield Inn & Suites in the City of Avon, Ohio. The woman said her sister called her and told
her there was a man in the hotel lobby in full headdress with multiple disposable phones
pledging his allegiance to ISIS she told the dispatcher. She added that the man was acting
panicky.
36. Meanwhile, while on the phone with the original caller, the Avon Police
Department received a second 911 call from Defendant Silvas father requesting assistance on
behalf of Defendant Silva for the same reason. The man told dispatchers that Defendant Silva
was terrified and hiding in the back.
37. Plaintiff Al-Menhali, who was totally unaware of these 911 calls, took a seat in
the lobby and waited for Defendants Silva and Acton-Bell to print a list of potential hotels.
38. Minutes later, Al-Menhali walked out the front doors of the hotel.
39. The Defendant Police Officers arrived at the hotel at this moment, and
immediately exited their vehicles and trained their guns upon Al-Menhali.
40. As the Defendant Police Officers aggressively approached Plaintiff Al-Menhali
with guns drawn, they shouted orders to drop his phone and get down to the ground.
9
41. Plaintiff Al-Menhali had no idea what was going on. He thought maybe
something was wrong in the hotel, or this was a training exercise. However, he quickly realized
he was the target of this police show of force.
42. Plaintiff Al-Menhali did not display any aggression or make any threatening
comments as the police approached him.
43. Plaintiff Al-Menhali immediately complied with police orders, sinking to his
knees.
44. In broad daylight, the heavily armed Defendant Officers ran toward the
businessman, assaulted him, forced him to the ground, stripped him of his shoes, and threw at
least one of Plaintiffs cellular phones into the bushes.
45. After the Defendant Officers detained and handcuffed Plaintiff Al-Menhali, they
searched him and his belongings, rifling through his identification cards and other personal
belongings.
46. One Defendant Officer held Al-Menhalis chest down with his knee as Al-
Menhali lay on the ground.
47. Plaintiff Al-Menahli was visibly confused and said, "What is this? I'm a tourist
and this is not good."
48. The Defendant Officers did not find weapons or contraband of any kind on
Plaintiff Al-Menhali.
49. After the Defendant Officers had already assaulted, retrained, handcuffed and
searched Al-Menhali, Defendant Fischbach made contact with Defendant Silva and determined
Al-Menhali never made statements related to ISIS.
10
50. Defendant Silva reportedly told police she heard the man speaking on his cell
phone in Arabic. Thats all I know and it scared me. She denied sending a text message that the
man was declaring loyalty to ISIS.
51. In truth, Defendant Silva did send a text message to her family falsely alleging
that Plaintiff was declaring himself to ISIS, which triggered their 911 calls.
52. Defendant Acton-Bell affirmed Defendant Silvas baseless accusations, claiming
that Plaintiff Al-Menhali was continually asking about monthly room rates, and was acting
suspicious and pulled out a disposable flip phone.
53. While Plaintiff Al-Menhali was at the hotel desk talking with Defendant Silva,
Defendant Acton-Bell slipped Defendant Silva a note which read, get the gentlemen out/away
from the Fairfield Inn.
54. Defendant Acton-Bell encouraged the 911 call falsely reporting Plaintiff Al-
Menhali when she told Defendant Silva that there are certain things they have to call the police
for.
55. Defendant Silva told police officers that she was advised the police should be
called because Plaintiff Al-Menhali was in possession of two cell phones, the conversation he
had on his cell phone (in Arabic) and that he never removed his sunglasses.
56. Shortly after these interactions with Defendant Acton-Bell, Defendant Silva sent
the text messages to her family falsely accusing Plaintiff Al-Menhali of pledging his allegiance
to ISIS and asking them to call the police.
11
57. Witnesses present in the hotel lobby during Plaintiffs interaction with Defendants
Silva and Acton-Bell confirm that Plaintiff was not acting in a threatening manner and was
simply asking about questions about hotel rooms.
58. A few minutes after the police assault on Plaintiff Al-Menhali, he collapsed to the
ground and was transported by ambulance to St. John Westshore Medical Center.
59. Plaintiff Al-Menhali underwent open heart surgery in February 2016. As a result,
at the time of this incident, Plaintiff could not lift heavy objects or put stress on his chest because
his internal stitches could rupture.
60. When Plaintiff Al-Menhali was arbitrarily arrested and the police pinned him the
floor, he felt an incredible amount of pain which he believes is related to his heart surgery. He
also suffered symptoms of a stroke and was hospitalized several days.
61. Plaintiffs violent arrest and the false allegations against him were widely
publicized around the world. As a result, Plaintiff suffered great reputational harm and lost
lucrative business.
62. Plaintiff Al-Menhalis arrest and hospitalization caused Plaintiff Milki to suffer
great fear and distress for the safety, health and well-being of her husband
63. Avons mayor and Chief of Police have met with and apologized to Plaintiff Al-
Menhali.
64. In spite of the apology, this Islamophobic episode further exposes the dark, racist
underbelly of America thriving under the guise of security.
12
65. After the incident, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation
warned Emiratis traveling abroad against wearing traditional national dress of robe (called a
kandura), a headscarf and headband, in order to preserve their safety.
66. Emiratis traveling abroad should not have to hide their national dress because of
prejudice; rather the police have a duty to protect them from assault and unsubstantiated
allegations and threats. Furthermore, employers in this country should train their employees that
discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and/or religion will not be tolerated.
67. Marriot International Inc., which owns the hotel, continued to malign Plaintiff Al-
Menhali even after the incident by blaming him for what occurred. They released a statement
that reads, in part: The unusual behavior of a man that had entered the hotel caused the hotel
staff to be concerned. A call was placed to the local authorities who responded right away. As
this is a police matter it would be inappropriate to comment further. Plaintiff Al-Menhali did
not engage in any unusual behavior on June 29, 2016 to warrant the discriminatory accusations
or unjustified use of police force.
68. Marriot International Inc. called the arrest a terrible misunderstanding" that it
deeply regrets. We have been in regular contact with the hotel since and we will be following
up to discuss diversity and inclusion training to help prevent this type of situation.
69. Police acted inappropriately and with excessive force that was totally unwarranted
and unjustified.
70. As a result of the Defendants false attacks on Plaintiff and the Defendant
Officers use of excessive force, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer, inter alia, extreme
pain, physical injury, severe mental and emotional distress, anguish, anxiety, humiliation,
13
distress, reputational harm, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of future earnings, loss of business
opportunity and expenses. His injuries and damages are continuing and permanent.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(42 U.S.C 1983 Violations of the First Amendment
Against Defendant Officers Hortobagyi, Fischbach, Barton, Sidor, Smith, Goscewski)
71. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all paragraphs in this Complaint, whether
stated before or after this claim, as if fully rewritten herein.
72. Defendants Hortobagyi, Fischbach, Barton, Sidor, Smith and Goscewski acted
under color of law at all relevant times and deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional rights in
violation of Title 42 U.S.C. 1983.
73. Plaintiff Al-Menhali was wearing his kandura and keffiyeh in expression of his
religion and faith.
74. Defendants Hortobagyi, Fischbach, Barton, Sidor, Smith and Goscewski singled
out Plaintiff and illegally searched and seized him based upon his religious expression.
75. Said actions were in violation of the Plaintiffs right to freedom of religious
expression and constituted a violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the
United States Constitution.
76. As a direct and proximate result of this violation by Defendants, Plaintiff was
forced to endure and suffer, and continues to suffer, inter alia, extreme pain, physical injury,
severe mental and emotional distress, anguish, anxiety, humiliation, distress, reputational harm,
loss of enjoyment of life, loss of future earnings, loss of business opportunity and expenses. as
set forth in this Complaint.
14
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(42 U.S.C. 1983 Violations of the Fourth Amendment
Against Defendants Hortobagyi, Fischbach, Barton, Sidor, Smith, Goscewski)
78. Defendants Hortobagyi, Fischbach, Barton, Sidor, Smith, Goscewski acted under
color of law at all relevant times and deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional rights in violation of
Title 42 U.S.C. 1983.
79. Defendants Hortobagyi, Fischbach, Barton, Sidor, Smith, Goscewski deprived
Plaintiff of his right to be free from unreasonable seizure by seizing his person, arresting him
without lawful privilege, against his consent, and without probable cause, and subjecting him to
the unjustified use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States Constitution or failing to intervene to prevent these unreasonable seizures.
80. Defendants Hortobagyi, Fischbach, Barton, Sidor, Smith, Goscewski acted
intentionally, willfully, and/or in a reckless, wanton, gross or unreasonable manner.
81. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Hortobagyi, Fischbach, Barton,
Sidor, Smith, Goscewskis conduct, Plaintiff was forced to endure and suffer, and continues to
suffer, inter alia, extreme pain, physical injury, severe mental and emotional distress, anguish,
anxiety, humiliation, distress, reputational harm, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of future
earnings, loss of business opportunity and expenses as set forth in this Complaint.
15
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(State Law Claim - Assault and Battery -
83. Defendants Hortobagyi, Fischbach, Barton, Sidor, Smith, Goscewski knowingly
caused physical harm by the use of force which was excessive, disproportionate under the
circumstances, and unjustifiable, or failed to intervene to prevent such force.
84. This unlawful use of force was harmful and offensive, proximately caused
Plaintiffs injuries and constitutes a battery against Plaintiff.
85. Defendants actually caused physical harm to Plaintiff, touching and injuring him
intentionally and without permission.
86. Defendants acted willfully, intentionally, in bad faith, in a reckless, and/or wanton
manner, and/or with malicious purpose.
Sidor, Smith, Goscewskis assault and battery, Plaintiff was forced to endure and suffer, and
continues to suffer, inter alia, extreme pain, physical injury, severe mental and emotional
distress, anguish, anxiety, humiliation, distress, reputational harm, loss of enjoyment of life, loss
of future earnings, loss of business opportunity and expenses as set forth in this Complaint.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(State Law Claim - Negligence Willful, Wanton, and Reckless Conduct
16
89. Defendants Hortobagyi, Fischbach, Barton, Sidor, Smith, Goscewski disregarded
the public trust granted to their positions as Police Officers and acted in an intentional, willful,
wanton, negligent and/or malicious manner, failed to exercise due care, and acted with a
malicious purpose and/or in bad faith and/or in a willful and/or wanton and/or reckless manner
while engaged in police functions and activities, including the excessive and unreasonable use of
force against Plaintiff causing him pain and injury, and illegally detaining Plaintiff.
90. Each of the individual Defendants, as set forth herein, engaged in negligent,
reckless and/or willful and/or wanton conduct such that they are not entitled to the immunities
set forth in O.R.C. 2744.01 et seq.
Sidor, Smith, Goscewskis negligent, reckless, wanton and/or willful conduct, Plaintiff was
forced to endure and suffer, and continues to suffer, inter alia, extreme pain, physical injury,
severe mental and emotional distress, anguish, anxiety, humiliation, distress, reputational harm,
loss of enjoyment of life, loss of future earnings, loss of business opportunity and expenses as set
forth in this Complaint.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(State Law Claim - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
93. The acts and conduct of Defendants Hortobagyi, Fischbach, Barton, Sidor, Smith,
Goscewski, as set forth above, were extreme and outrageous. The Defendants actions were rooted
in an abuse of power or authority, and they were undertaken with intent to cause, or were in
17
reckless disregard of the probability, that their conduct would cause severe emotional distress to
Plaintiff, as is more fully alleged above.
94. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiff was forced to
endure and suffer, and continues to suffer, inter alia, extreme pain, physical injury, severe mental
and emotional distress, anguish, anxiety, humiliation, distress, reputational harm, loss of
enjoyment of life, loss of future earnings, loss of business opportunity and expenses as set forth
in this Complaint.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(State Law Claim Unlawful Discrimination in Violation of Ohio Rev. Code 4112 -
Against Defendants Silva, Acton-Bell)
96. The Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff Al-Menahli based on his race,
color, religion, and national origin, as described more fully above.
97. Defendants conduct violated Plaintiff Al-Menahli rights to be free from
discrimination Ohio Rev. Code Chapter 4112 by denying Plaintiff the full and equal enjoyment
of, access to, or ability to procure services and/or housing in Defendants and/or others
establishments.
98. The conduct of Defendants through their agents as described herein was
intentional, willful, reckless, negligent, malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive and/or done with
the knowledge that they were acting in violation of state law, and/or with a willful and conscious
disregard for Plaintiff Al-Menhalis rights and for the deleterious consequences of their actions.
18
99. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants discrimination against him,
Plaintiff was forced to endure and suffer, and continues to suffer, inter alia, extreme pain,
physical injury, severe mental and emotional distress, anguish, anxiety, humiliation, distress,
reputational harm, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of future earnings, loss of business opportunity
and expenses as set forth in this Complaint.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(State Law Claim Making False Alarm Against Defendants Silva, Acton-Bell)
101. Defendants misidentified Plaintiff Al-Menhali as a member of the terrorist
organization ISIS to engage in the Swatting hoax, or spoofing emergency responders into
sending a SWAT team to address a perceived threat that goes beyond a minor police response to
assess a given situation.
102. Through intentional misidentification of Plaintiff Al-Menhali as a terrorist acting
violently and holding multiple cell phones, Defendants did cause emergency responders to
initiate a SWAT response to a perceived higher level threat.
103. Defendants action constitutes a criminal violation of state law including, but not
limited to, Making False Alarms O.R.C. 2917.32, and damages are recoverable through O.R.C.
2307.60.
104. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants negligent, reckless, intentional,
wanton and/or willful conduct, Plaintiff was forced to endure and suffer, and continues to suffer,
inter alia, extreme pain, physical injury, severe mental and emotional distress, anguish, anxiety,
19
humiliation, distress, reputational harm, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of future earnings, loss of
business opportunity and expenses as set forth in this Complaint.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(State Law Claim - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
106. The acts and conduct of Defendants Silva and Acton-Bell, as set forth above, were
extreme and outrageous. Defendants falsely reported Plaintiff Al-Menhali to be a member of a
terrorist organization with absolutely no basis in fact, which resulted in heavily armed Avon
Police officers forcefully subduing him without cause.
107. The Defendants actions were undertaken with intent to cause, or were in reckless
disregard of the probability, that their conduct would cause severe emotional distress to Plaintiff,
as is more fully alleged above.
108. Defendants tortious conduct was so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all
possible bounds of decency and is utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
109. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff was forced to
in this Complaint.
20
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(State Law Claim - Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress -
111. The acts or omissions of Defendants Silva and Acton-Belle have caused Plaintiff
Al-Menhali serious and foreseeable emotional distress as a result of the actual physical danger
and/or threat Plaintiff was placed in as heavily armed Avon Police Officers forcefully assaulted
and detained him without cause.
112. Defendants actions placed Plaintiff in actual physical peril and suffered
overwhelming mental anguish and/or stress manifesting in extreme physical and mental
debilitating injury, some of which required immediate hospitalization.
in this Complaint.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(State Law Claim - False Light Invasion of Privacy -
Against Defendants Marriot International Inc., Marriot Hotel Services, Inn on the Rivers
Edge, L.P., Fairfield Inn and Suites Avon, Silva, Acton-Bell)
115. Defendants gave publicity by causing persons to make false police reports against
Plaintiff Al-Menhali, among other things, claiming him to be a member of an extremist terrorist
21
organization and thereby placing him before the public in a false light with no basis in fact by
attacking his character, history, activities, or beliefs.
116. Defendants false claims were published worldwide and were an unwarranted
invasion of and intrusion into Plaintiff Al-Menhalis privacy.
117. Defendants malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, and/or negligent
misrepresentation of Plaintiff Al-Menhali were highly offensive to any reasonable person.
118. The Defendants had knowledge of or, by failing to obtain even a modicum of
information, acted in reckless disregard to the falsity of the publicized matter.
enjoyment of life, loss of future earnings, loss of business opportunity and expenses, as set forth
in this Complaint.
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(State Law Claim Defamation and/or Libel
121. Defendants Marriot International Inc., Silva and Acton-Bell knowingly and/or
negligently published a false statement about Plaintiff Al-Menhali being a member of a terrorist
organization, without privilege to do so, to a third party.
122. Defendants malicious disregard for the truth caused terrible injury to Plaintiff Al-
Menhalis reputation and exposed him to great public shame, ridicule and/or disgrace.
22
123. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants negligent, reckless, wanton and/or
willful conduct, Plaintiff was forced to endure and suffer, and continues to suffer, inter alia,
extreme pain, physical injury, severe mental and emotional distress, anguish, anxiety,
business opportunity and expenses, as set forth in this Complaint.
TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(State Law Claim Negligence and/or Gross Negligence
125. Defendants, through its employees, associates, managers, directors, officers, or
other representatives or agents, have a duty to be truthful when communicating information with
others and not to discriminate on the basis of race, religion and national origin.
126. Defendants affirm this duty in the motto espoused in their Business Conduct
Guide, claiming our business relies upon integrity and good judgment.
127. Defendants have acknowledged a duty, among others, to ensure that all employees
or other persons acting on Defendants behalf adhere to the policies set forth in the Business
Conduct Guide.
128. Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable and ordinary care and caution in and
about the ownership, management, maintenance, supervision, control and operation of the
Fairfield Inn and Suites Avon including but not limited to proper hiring, training and supervision
23
of all employees, managers, supervisors, associates based on the policies set forth in the Business
Conduct Guide.
129. Defendants, by and through their agents, employees, servants and/or independent
contractors acted negligently, carelessly, maliciously, willfully and wantonly with conscious
disregard to the consequences of their acts and/or omissions by, among other things, calling 911
and falsely accusing Plaintiff Al-Menhali of being a member of an extreme terrorist organization
without regard to the consequences to him and without exercising any or very slight care in
determining the validity of the utterances.
THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(State Law Claim - Negligent Hiring -
Edge, L.P., Fairfield Inn and Suites Avon)
132. Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff Al-Menhali to exercise reasonable care with
regard to Plaintiff and to hire employees that would not discriminate against customers based on
race, religion, and/or national origin.
133. Defendants knew or should have known of Defendants Silvas and Acton-Bells
unfitness prior to the time they were actually hired.
24
134. Defendants and/or its agents breached their duties to exercise reasonable care and
failed to adequately investigate Defendants Silva and Acton-Bell prior to the time they were
actually hired.
135. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants breach, Plaintiff Al-Menhalis
suffered actual and prospective damages.
136. Defendants had an employment relationship with Defendants Silva and Acton-
Bell. Defendants Silva and Acton-Bell were incompetent to perform their jobs appropriately, and
Defendants knew or should have known of their incompetence. Defendants Silva and Acton-
Bells acts caused Plaintiffs injuries, and Defendants negligence in hiring and/or retaining
Defendants Silva and Acton-Bell were the proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries.
FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(State Claim - Negligent Training/Supervision
139. Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff Al-Menhali to exercise reasonable care with
regard to Plaintiff and properly train and supervise their employees, agents, or representatives.
25
140. Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff Al-Menhali by failing to exercise
reasonable care and failing to train and/or supervise Defendants Silva and Acton-Bell regarding
discrimination of hotel visitors on the basis of race, religion and national origin.
141. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants breach, Plaintiff Al-Menhali
suffered actual and prospective damages.
142. Defendants had an employment relationship with Defendants Silva and Acton-
Bell. Defendants Silva and Acton-Bell were incompetent to perform their jobs appropriately, and
Defendants knew or should have known of their incompetence. Defendants Silva and Acton-
Bells acts caused Plaintiffs injuries, and Defendants negligence in training and/or supervising
Defendants Silva and Acton-Bell were the proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries.
FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(State Claim Against Marriot International Inc., Marriot Hotel Services, Inn on the Rivers
Edge, L.P., Fairfield Inn and Suites Avon Respondeat Superior)
stated before or after this claim, as if same were fully rewritten herein.
145. In committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants Silva and
Acton-Bell were members and agents of Marriot International Inc., Marriot Hotel Services, Inn
26
on the Rivers Edge, L.P. and Fairfield Inn and Suites Avon, acting at all relevant times within
the course and scope of their employment.
146. Defendants are thereby liable as principal for all state law torts committed by
Defendants Silva and Acton-Bell as alleged herein pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat
superior.
SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(State Claim Against All Defendants Loss of Consortium)
147. Plaintiffs incorporate herein all paragraphs in this Complaint, whether stated
before or after this claim, as if same were fully rewritten herein.
148. Plaintiff Taghrid Milki states that she is and was at all times relevant herein, the
wife Mr. Al-Menhali.
149. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants conduct as set forth above,
Plaintiff Milki has sustained damages, including the loss of services, companionship, and
consortium of her husband, she will continue to lose such services, consortium and
companionship on a permanent basis, and she will continue to incur medical expenses and other
consequential money damages on his behalf.
150. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiff Milki has
suffered, and continues to suffer damages. Plaintiff Milki seeks all available remedies including,
but not limited to equitable, compensatory, punitive and/or nominal damages, as well as costs,
pre-judgment interest, and attorney fees and expenses.
27
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgement against the Defendants for:
(A) Compensatory and consequential damages for all the injuries identified in an
amount to be determined by the Court and jury in excess of the Courts jurisdictional amount;
(B) Punitive damages in an amount to the be determined at trial for the willful and
malicious conduct of the individual defendants;
(C) Equitable relief, including without limitation, that Defendants be made to adopt
appropriate policies to prevent future instances of the type of conduct described herein;
(D) Attorneys fees and the costs of this action and other costs that may be associated
with this action; and
(E) Any and all other relief that this Court deems equitable, necessary and just.
A JURY TRIAL IS REQUESTED TO HEAR THIS MATTER.
/s/ Terry H. Gilbert

TERRY H GILBERT (0021948)
SARAH GELSOMINO (0084340)
JACQUELINE C. GREENE (0092733)
Friedman & Gilbert
55 Public Square, Suite 1055
Cleveland, OH 44113-1901
Telephone: 216-241-1430
Facsimile: 216-621-0427
tgilbert@f-glaw.com
sgelomino@f-glaw.com
jgreene@f-glaw.com
28
Case: 1:17-cv-01089-SO Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 05/24/17 1 of 3. PageID #: 29
JS 44 (Rev. 08/16) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

Ahmed Al-Menhali and Taghrid Milki Marriott International, Inc., et. al.
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff United Arab Emerites County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Friedman and Gilbert, 55 Public Square, Ste 1055, Cleveland, OH
44113; 216-241-1430
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 480 Consumer Credit
of Veterans Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) 490 Cable/Sat TV
160 Stockholders Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 850 Securities/Commodities/
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal Relations 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 891 Agricultural Acts
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice 790 Other Labor Litigation 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRSThird Party Act/Review or Appeal of
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 950 Constitutionality of
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)
1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 USC 1983 and state law claims of assault and battery, defamation, negligence, etc.
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Defendants made false allegations against Plaintiff, falsely detained and used excessive force against Plaintiff
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
05/24/2017 /s/ Terry Gilbert
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
Print Save As... Reset

Case: 1:17-cv-01089-SO Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 05/24/17 2 of 3. PageID #: 30
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
I. Civil Categories: (Please check one category only).
1. General Civil
2. Administrative Review/Social Security
3. Habeas Corpus Death Penalty
*If under Title 28, 2255, name the SENTENCING JUDGE:
CASE NUMBER:
II. RELATED OR REFILED CASES. See LR 3.1 which provides in pertinent part: "If an action is filed or removed to this Court
and assigned to a District Judge after which it is discontinued, dismissed or remanded to a State court, and
subsequently refiled, it shall be assigned to the same Judge who received the initial case assignment without regardfor
the place of holding court in which the case was refiled. Counsel or a party without counsel shall be responsible for
bringing such cases to the attention of the Court by responding to the questions included on the Civil Cover Sheet."
This action is RELATED to another PENDING civil case. This action is REFILED pursuant to LR 3.1.
If applicable, please indicate on page 1 in section VIII, the name of the Judge and case number.
III. In accordance with Local Civil Rule 3.8, actions involving counties in the Eastern Division shall be filed at any of the
divisional offices therein. Actions involving counties in the Western Division shall be filed at the Toledo office. For the
purpose of determining the proper division, and for statistical reasons, the following information is requested.
ANSWER ONE PARAGRAPH ONLY. ANSWER PARAGRAPHS 1 THRU 3 IN ORDER. UPON FINDING WHICH
PARAGRAPH APPLIES TO YOUR CASE, ANSWER IT AND STOP.
(1) Resident defendant. If the defendant resides in a county within this district, please set forth the name of such
county
COUNTY: Lorain
Corporation For the purpose of answering the above, a corporation is deemed to be a resident of that county in which
it has its principal place of business in that district.
(2) Non-Resident defendant. If no defendant is a resident of a county in this district, please set forth the county
wherein the cause of action arose or the event complained of occurred.
COUNTY:
(3) Other Cases. If no defendant is a resident of this district, or if the defendant is a corporation not having a principle
place of business within the district, and the cause of action arose or the event complained of occurred outside
this district, please set forth the county of the plaintiff's residence.
COUNTY:
IV. The Counties in the Northern District of Ohio are divided into divisions as shown below. After the county is
determined in Section III, please check the appropriate division.
EASTERN DIVISION
AKRON (Counties: Carroll, Holmes, Portage, Stark, Summit, Tuscarawas and Wayne)
CLEVELAND (Counties: Ashland, Ashtabula, Crawford, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake,
Lorain, Medina and Richland)
YOUNGSTOWN (Counties: Columbiana, Mahoning and Trumbull)
WESTERN DIVISION
TOLEDO (Counties: Allen, Auglaize, Defiance, Erie, Fulton, Hancock, Hardin, Henry,
Huron, Lucas, Marion, Mercer, Ottawa, Paulding, Putnam, Sandusky, Seneca
VanWert, Williams, Wood and Wyandot)
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 08/16) Case: 1:17-cv-01089-SO Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 05/24/17 3 of 3. PageID #: 31
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Ahmed Al-Menhali Lawsuit Against Fairfield Inn

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ahmed Al-Menhali Lawsuit Against Fairfield Inn

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 1:17-cv-01089-SO Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/24/17 1 of 28.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES AVON, )

traditional dress and speaking Arabic.

2. The Defendant Avon Police Officers failed to investigate or deescalate Defendants

without probable cause and without any legal justification.

United States and the United Arab Emirates.

intolerance, ignorance, poor training, bias, prejudice, bigotry and unlawfulness.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. Diversity matter jurisdiction is conferred under 28 U.S.C. 1332.

citizens of different states and/or countries.

arising under the laws of the State of Ohio.

brought in a District where at least one of the Defendants does business.

Ohio with offices, hotels or businesses in the State of Ohio.

offices, hotels or businesses in the State of Ohio.

offices, hotels or businesses in the State of Ohio.

Lorain County, Ohio.

Inn and Suites Avon.

profits and losses of the Fairfield Inn and Suites Avon.

course and scope of such agency, employment, and/or concerted activity.

his individual as well as official capacity.

individual as well as official capacity.

individual as well as official capacity.

individual as well as official capacity.

individual as well as official capacity.

his individual as well as official capacity.

individually, jointly, and severally.

travels and has never before encountered a problem.

was terrified and hiding in the back.

40. As the Defendant Police Officers aggressively approached Plaintiff Al-Menhali

he was the target of this police show of force.

comments as the police approached him.

least one of Plaintiffs cellular phones into the bushes.

Menhali lay on the ground.

and this is not good."

Al-Menhali never made statements related to ISIS.

man was declaring loyalty to ISIS.

52. Defendant Acton-Bell affirmed Defendant Silvas baseless accusations, claiming

suspicious and pulled out a disposable flip phone.

from the Fairfield Inn.

to ISIS and asking them to call the police.

simply asking about questions about hotel rooms.

his internal stitches could rupture.

also suffered symptoms of a stroke and was hospitalized several days.

underbelly of America thriving under the guise of security.

kandura), a headscarf and headband, in order to preserve their safety.

or unjustified use of police force.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

71. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all paragraphs in this Complaint, whether

stated before or after this claim, as if fully rewritten herein.

violation of Title 42 U.S.C. 1983.

religion and faith.

United States Constitution.

set forth in this Complaint.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

77. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all paragraphs in this Complaint, whether

stated before or after this claim, as if fully rewritten herein.

Title 42 U.S.C. 1983.

79. Defendants Hortobagyi, Fischbach, Barton, Sidor, Smith, Goscewski deprived

80. Defendants Hortobagyi, Fischbach, Barton, Sidor, Smith, Goscewski acted

intentionally, willfully, and/or in a reckless, wanton, gross or unreasonable manner.

81. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Hortobagyi, Fischbach, Barton,

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF