ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Jul 03 10:37 AM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF GREENVILLE

Keith P. Grounsell, C/A No.: 2018-CP-23-03106

Plaintiff, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

v.
City of Simpsonville, George Curtis, Janice
Curtis, Perry Eichor, Pamela Garrett,
Elizabeth Kelly Fann, and Stephanie Kelly,
OF DEFENDANTS CITY OF SIMPSONVILLE,
GEORGE CURTIS, JANICE CURTIS, PERRY
EICHOR AND STEPHANIE KELLY
AND
COUNTERCLAIM OF DEFENDANTS
GEORGE CURTIS AND JANICE CURTIS

Defendants.

Defendants City of Simpsonville, George Curtis, Janice Curtis, Perry Eichor, and

Stephanie Kelly (collectively referenced as the “Defendants”), hereby answers the Complaint of

Plaintiff Keith P. Grounsell, denying all allegations not explicitly admitted, as follows:

PARTIES & JURISDICTION

1. In Paragraphs 1 through 10, Plaintiff attempts to allege facts relevant to the

identity of the parties, and jurisdiction and venue. The Defendants believes that jurisdiction and

venue are proper in this Court. Unless otherwise admitted, the remaining allegations in

Paragraphs 1 through 10 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied.

PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

2. In Paragraphs 11 through 53 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff attempts to set

forth the facts and circumstances related to his claims. Documents related to Plaintiff’s work

record speak for themselves, and to the extent Plaintiff’s allegations are inconsistent with this

record, they are denied. Further, the Defendants deny any and all allegations that any of them

engaged in any conduct that was unlawful or inappropriate in any manner with regard to

Plaintiff.

1
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Jul 03 10:37 AM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
3. Further, Plaintiff signed a release on August 29, 2014, in which he released the

following parties from all claims:

a. The City of Simpsonville

b. City Council Members
c. All of City employees, trustees, officers, agents, successors, assigns, insurers,
attorneys, affiliates and related business entities.

4. Unless otherwise admitted, the allegations in Paragraphs 11 through 53 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(AGAINST THE CITY OF SIMPSONVILLE)
(WRONGFUL DISCHARGE)

5. Defendants incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 53 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

6. The allegations in Paragraphs 54 through 59 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied.

To the extent Plaintiff has made legal assertions in these allegations, no response is required.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(AGAINST THE CITY OF SIMPSONVILLE)
(DEFAMATION)

7. Defendants incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 59 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

8. The factual allegations in Paragraphs 60 through 66 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are

denied. To the extent Plaintiff has made legal assertions in these allegations, no response is

required.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(AGAINST THE CITY OF SIMPSONVILLE)
(NEGLIGENCE/GROSS NEGLIGENCE)

9. Defendants incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 66 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

2
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Jul 03 10:37 AM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
10. The factual allegations in Paragraphs 67 through 73 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are

denied. To the extent Plaintiff has made legal assertions in these allegations, no response is

required.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(AGAINST DEFENDANTS GEORGE CURTIS, JANICE CURTIS,
PERRY EICHOR, AND STEPHANIE KELLY )
(DEFAMATION)

11. Defendants incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 73 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

12. The factual allegations in Paragraphs 74 through 80 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are

denied. To the extent Plaintiff has made legal assertions in these allegations, no response is

required.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(AGAINST DEFENDANTS GEORGE CURTIS, JANICE CURTIS,
PERRY EICHOR, AND STEPHANIE KELLY )
(TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT)

13. Defendants incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 80 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

14. The factual allegations in Paragraphs 81 through 87 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are

denied. To the extent Plaintiff has made legal assertions in these allegations, no response is

required.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(AGAINST DEFENDANTS GEORGE CURTIS, JANICE CURTIS,
PERRY EICHOR, AND STEPHANIE KELLY )
(CIVIL CONSPIRACY)

15. Defendants incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 87 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

3
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Jul 03 10:37 AM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
16. The factual allegations in Paragraphs 88 through 94 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are

denied. To the extent Plaintiff has made legal assertions in these allegations, no response is

required.

NOW THEREFORE, having fully answered the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, the

Defendants now sets forth their DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, and Defendants

George Curtis and Janice Curtis set forth their COUNTERCLAIMS:

FOR A FIRST DEFENSE

1. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted, and his lawsuit

must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 12(c), SCRCP.

FOR A SECOND DEFENSE

2. Plaintiff has failed to allege adequately that he was discharged, or that his

resignation was a violation of an identifiable “public policy.”

FOR A THIRD DEFENSE

3. The Defendants deny that they have engaged in any type of defamatory conduct

with regard to Plaintiff, and furthermore, assert absolute privilege, qualified privilege, truth, lack

of malice, and lack of publication as defenses and/or affirmative defenses to any such claim by

Plaintiff.

FOR A FOURTH DEFENSE

4. Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that he has suffered any damages related to any of

his causes action, or that he has properly mitigated any of the damages.

FOR A FIFTH DEFENSE

5. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred by the doctrines of “unclean hands,” res judicata,

collateral estoppel, release and/or and Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

4
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Jul 03 10:37 AM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
FOR A SIXTH DEFENSE

6. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

FOR A SEVENTH DEFENSE

7. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by common law legislative immunity.

FOR AN EIGHTH DEFENSE

8. Plaintiff has received adequate due process under the South Carolina Constitution

from the Defendants.

FOR A NINTH DEFENSE

9. Defendant is immune to Plaintiff’s tort claims under the following provisions of

the S.C. Tort Claims Act: S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-20, S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-30, S.C. Code

Ann. § 15-78-60(1), S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-60(4), S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-60(5), S.C. Code

Ann. § 15-78-60(17), S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-70, S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-110, and S.C. Code

Ann. § 15-78-120.

FOR A TENTH DEFENSE

10. Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to sustain a claim for civil conspiracy.

FOR AN ELEVENTH DEFENSE

11. The Plaintiff’s claim for civil conspiracy is barred because he can show no

“special damages” related solely to the claim for civil conspiracy.

FOR A TWELFTH DEFENSE

12. Plaintiff’s claim for civil conspiracy is barred by the doctrine of intracorporate

conspiracy, and because his allegations relevant to the claim are repetitive of those supporting

other claims.

5
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Jul 03 10:37 AM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
FOR A THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

13. Plaintiff cannot state a claim for civil conspiracy because Plaintiff was a “public

official” within the meaning of Angus v. Burroughs & Chapin Co., 596 S.E.2d 67, 70 (S.C. App.

2004) (Angus I), rev’d on other grounds, 368 S.C. 167, 628 S.E.2d 261 (S.C. 2006) (Angus II),

and because there is no evidence that Defendant acted outside the scope of his duties.

FOR A FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

14. Defendants plead as a defense to Plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim the provisions

of Proviso 117.87 of the State Appropriations Act of 2017-18, and any successor proviso in any

applicable subsequent act of the General Assembly.

FOR A FIFTEENTH DEFENSE

15. That to the extent this action is one seeking to collect punitive damages brought

against the Defendants, such an action for punitive damages is barred as a matter of law for a

number of reasons, including: the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to the

states through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; an arguable

extension of the prohibition of the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment, as applied to

the states through the Fourteenth Amendment; an arguable extension of the provisions of the

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the

Fourteenth Amendment; relevant provisions of the South Carolina Constitution, including, but

not limited to, Article I, Section 3; and the South Carolina Tort Claims Act; all of which are

asserted as bars to recovery of punitive damages against the Defendants.

16. That, moreover, as the present case and statutory law standard to measure and

confer power to a jury to award punitive damages under South Carolina law has not been

formulated to comport with federal or state constitutional rights and guarantees, lacks objective

6
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Jul 03 10:37 AM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
criteria, lacks a meaningful standard, is void for vagueness, and violates constitutional due

process and equal protection procedural protection, an award of punitive damages would violate

the Defendant’s constitutional rights and guarantees.

17. That, further, the Plaintiff has failed as a matter of law to state a claim for which

punitive damage relief is available against the Defendants.

FOR A SIXTEENTH DEFENSE

AND BY WAY OF A FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
ON BEHALF OF GEORGE AND JANICE CURTIS
(ABUSE OF PROCESS)

1. Defendants George and Janice Curtis (collectively referenced as “Mr. and Mrs.

Curtis”) repeat the preceding allegations of the Answer as if fully repeated here verbatim.

2. Mr. and Mrs. Curtis are informed and believe that Plaintiff brought this action

against them for an ulterior purpose, namely, to act on his personal political vendetta against

them.

3. Mr. and Mrs. Curtis are additionally informed and believe that Plaintiff’s willful

acts in initiating civil process against them are improper and that Plaintiff’s objective in filing

suit against them is merely to embarrass, harass, harangue, and annoy them rather than assert any

meritorious claim at law, and further that Plaintiff acted maliciously and intentionally with the

sole purpose of damaging them.

4. Mr. and Mrs. Curtis are additionally informed and believe that there is no proper

motivation for the litigation instituted by Plaintiff against them.

5. As a proximate result of Plaintiff’s above-mentioned actions, Mr. and Mrs. Curtis,

and each of them, have suffered special damages in one or more of the following ways:

a. Significant embarrassment;

b. Damage to personal and professional reputation;

7
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Jul 03 10:37 AM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
c. Incurred attorney’s fees;

d. Lost income and damage to their businesses; and,

e. Emotional and Mental anguish.

6. Mr. and Mrs. Curtis are informed and believe that they are entitled to actual and

punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury.

FOR A SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE

AND BY WAY OF A SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
ON BEHALF OF JANICE CURTIS
(DEFAMATION)

7. Defendant Janice Curtis repeats the preceding allegations of her Answer as if fully

repeated here verbatim.

8. Defendant Janice Curtis is informed and believes that Plaintiff’s statements to the

South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (“SLED”) that are referenced in the Complaint were

accusations of obstruction of justice, an indictable crime, and as such were slander per se.

9. Defendant Janice Curtis is informed and believes that Plaintiff knew or should

have known the statements he made about Curtis were false, and that he published the statement

by repeating it to SLED, to other individuals, and by publishing the false allegation again in

Paragraph 38 of his Complaint.

10. Defendant Janice Curtis is informed and believes that Plaintiff’s actual knowledge

of the falsity of his statements to SLED regarding Curtis and/or his wanton and reckless

disregard for the truth of those statements constitutes actual malice.

11. Moreover, and in addition, on another occasion in February of 2016, Plaintiff

stated to a reporter for WYFF 4, a local news outlet, that Mrs. Curtis had “a vested interest” in a

prostitution ring that was being investigated in Simpsonville.

12. That allegation, likewise, was an accusation that Mrs. Curtis had committed an

8
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Jul 03 10:37 AM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
indictable crime, and as such, was slander per se.

13. Mrs. Curtis is informed and believes that Plaintiff knew or should have known the

statements he made about Curtis to the news outlet were false, and that he published the

statement by repeating it to the reporter, who then made it a part of an investigative report and

therefore published it to the viewing audience of the television station.

14. Mrs. Curtis is informed and believes that Plaintiff’s actual knowledge of the

falsity of his statements to WYFF 4 regarding her, and/or his wanton and reckless disregard for

the truth of those statements constitutes actual malice.

15. As a proximate result of Plaintiff’s false and defamatory statements, Mrs. Curtis

suffered embarrassment, damage to her reputation, has incurred attorneys’ fees, has lost income

and has suffered damage to her business, and has suffered mentally and emotionally.

16. She is therefore informed and believes that she is entitled to judgment against the

plaintiff for both actual and punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by a jury.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Complaint herein, the Defendants request

that:

1. the relief sought by Plaintiff be denied in each and every respect;

2. the claims asserted by Plaintiff be dismissed in their entirety with prejudice;

3. the Counterclaims of the counterclaimants be granted, and the relief sought by

them be granted; and,

4. Defendants be awarded their costs and attorney’s fees under applicable case and

statutory laws and such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2018.

9
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Jul 03 10:37 AM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, P.A.

/s/ Eugene H. Matthews

Eugene H. Matthews, SC Bar #10193
Post Office Drawer 7788
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
T: 803.771-4400
F: 803.779-0016
Email: gmatthews@RichardsonPlowden.com

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS CITY OF SIMPSONVILLE,

GEORGE CURTIS, JANICE CURTIS, PERRY EICHOR AND
STEPHANIE KELLY

MOONEYHAM BERRY, LLC

/s/ Joe Mooneyham

Joe Mooneyham, SC Bar #04041
Post Office Box 8359
Greenville, South Carolina 29604
T: 864.421.0036
F: 864.421.9060
Email: joe@mbllc.com

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS AND COUNTERCLAIMANTS

GEORGE CURTIS AND JANICE CURTIS

10