Ron Wanttaja
January 21st 08, 03:57 PM
Jim "Captain Zoom" Campbell and ANN entered 2007 with three ongoing lawsuits.
By the end of the year, all were dismissed. Most of the action occurred over
the past five months, and I've held off posting updates since things have been
fluid. It's been a month since the last court order, so the flurry is probably
over.
First, a couple of points. Please realize that I am *not* a lawyer, nor do I
have any legal background (beyond being sued by Mr. Campbell myself, of course
:-). Also, the only cases I'm addressing are those in Polk County, Florida,
where Zoom has filed most of his suits in the past. More suits may exist in
other jurisdictions. You may search for the dockets in Campbell's Polk County
cases using this web page: https://ori2.polk-county.net/ct_web1/search.asp.
We'll start with a recap in chronological order. Since 2002, Campbell and the
company he owns have filed six lawsuits in Polk County:
2002 Aero-News Network vs. Pulsar Aircraft
2002 Aero-News Network vs. Rotary Air Force
2003 James Campbell vs. Sun-N-Fun
2005 Aero-News Network vs. Powrachute
2005 Aero-News Network vs. Controlvision
2005 Aero-News Network vs. Liberty Aerospace
What was a typical ANN claim? In the Pulsar case…. "Suit is brought over banner
advertising for an Internet web site. Plaintiff contents that it agreed to and
did design and run such advertising on Defendant's behalf, and that Defendant
refused to compensate Plaintiff for these services despite having agreed to do
so. Defendant acknowledges having discussed advertising with Plaintiff but
denies that any final agreement was reached."
http://ori2.polk-county.net/wb_or1/details.asp?doc_id=2681308&file_num=2002109279&doc_status=V
In other words, Campbell alleged that Pulsar violated a verbal contract. The
settlement in the Rotary case also states that the alleged agreement was oral.
The settlements in the other three cases don't re-state the claim like the
earlier two.
As you'll see in the above link, Campbell lost his suit against Pulsar ("…no
contract was finalized") although Pulsar's request for compensation of its legal
expenses was denied.
(BTW, you might have to paste some of these links directly into your browser.
If all else fails, go to:
http://ori2.polk-county.net/wb_or1/or_sch_1.asp
… and use "aero news" as a search term.)
Rotary Air Force is a Canadian company, which means a Florida lawsuit couldn't
affect them directly. However, I suspect that if they'd ignored the suit and
allowed Campbell to gain a default judgment, they might be in danger of having
their equipment seized if they entered the US to attend Sun-n-Fun or Oshkosh.
They finally settled out-of-court after two years. Rotary agreed to pay a flat
$6,500 in exchange for dismissal. As you'll see in the settlement, Rotary made
its position clear: "It is understood that this settlement is the compromise
of a doubtful and disputed claim and the payment is not to be construed as an
admission of liability... said RELEASES deny liability and intend merely to
avoid further litigation...."
http://ori2.polk-county.net/wb_or1/details.asp?doc_id=3180274&file_num=2004110504&doc_status=V
At the next Sun-N-Fun after the settlement of the previous two cases (e.g.,
April 2005), Zoom sued three more companies: Liberty, Powrachute, and
Controlvision (I'll note here that all five companies were served AT the
Sun-N-Fun Fly-In; Rotary and Pulsar in '02, the other three in '05).
Zoom had a new attorney for these three cases, Mr. Phillip Kuhn. Campbell had
also hired Mr. Kuhn for his second lawsuit against Sun-N-Fun, filed in June
2003. This new claim was for Libel/Slander and Invasion of Privacy. I
previously posted the original suit, you can access it at:
http://tinyurl.com/34h63z
Sun-N-Fun's attorney (the same one they had for Zoom's original case) quickly
pointed out a couple of flaws in Campbell's complaint: First, the libel/slander
claims were directed mostly at a company HIRED by SnF to provide security. So
Zoom had to add the company, Dothan Security, as a co-defendant in this lawsuit.
Unlike the RAH-15 case, he did this in accordance to Florida law, by gaining the
judge's permission prior to adding a co-defendant.
The second move was related to Zoom's "Invasion of Privacy" claim, based on
Dothan posting Zoom's driver's license by the entry points to aid in identifying
him. The defendants pointed out that this use of a driver's license was allowed
by Florida law. Thus the invasion of privacy claim was dismissed early.
Dothan Security itself was dismissed in November 2005. No reason or basis is
given in the court order, other than "an amicable settlement...has been made."
A note later in the court order says, "each of the above parties is to bear
their own costs and attorney's fees" so it doesn't sound like any money changed
hands.
http://ori2.polk-county.net/wb_or1/details.asp?doc_id=3602428&file_num=2005268352&doc_status=V
The Powrachute case ended towards the tail end of 2006, with the other three
continuing into the new year. From what I can tell from the online docket,
Powrachute never did respond to Zoom's lawsuit. Campbell received a default
judgment in 2006, for about $22,300.
http://ori2.polk-county.net/wb_or1/details.asp?doc_id=3879116&file_num=2006222282&doc_status=V
I don't know whether Zoom actually collected on this judgment. The Powrachute
company that was sued dissolved not long after the suit was served, and a new
company in another state apparently bought the rights to the name and some of
the company assets.
In any case, a subsequent event hints that the judgment wasn't paid off: In
late August 2007, Mr. Kuhn asked the judge to dismiss him as Jim Campbell's
attorney in the Sun-N-Fun case.
Why? We don't know for sure. All that's available on the online case docket is
Kuhn's cover letter for his petition to withdraw, not the petition itself.
Kuhn's reasons for requesting being released as Campbell's attorney are not part
of the public record.
But we get a strong hint from the Judge's order granting Kuhn's motion to
withdraw as Zoom's attorney: The Judge's 12 September order says, "...there is
good cause to grant the Motion to Withdraw of Plaintiff's counsel pursuant to
Rule 4-1.16(b)(4)(5) of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct."
You can find the Rule at
http://www.ablelegalforms.com/flalawyerethics4116.html,
… but let me quote the specified sections:
--------------------------------------------------
"RULE 4-1.16 DECLINING OR TERMINATING REPRESENTATION
(a) ...
(b) When Withdrawal Is Allowed. Except as stated in subdivision (c), a
lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if withdrawal can be accomplished
without material adverse effect on the interests of the client, or if:
(1)...
(2)...
(3)...
(4) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer
regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the
lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;
(5) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on
the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client..."
----------------------------------------------------
To me, it looks like Campbell was not paying his legal bills in the SnF case.
It wouldn't be the first time. Campbell lost the attorney defending him in the
Fraud and Perjury lawsuit for the same reason, as well as another attorney in
suit against an ex-advertiser in the US AVIATOR days.
If that $22,300 judgment against Powrachute had indeed been collected, one would
have expected that Mr. Kuhn would have received a goodly portion. So either the
Powrachute settlement hadn't been collected or Zoom decided to NOT pay his
lawyer for another reason. Maybe he spent the money on his brand-new (albeit
used) Glasair, instead….:-)
The Judge's order allowed Zoom 60 days to find another attorney. Zoom asked for
ninety days, but was refused. The sixty days was from the date of the lawyer's
original request, so Zoom had until the end of October.
Kuhn's request to be dismissed as Campbell's attorney in the SnF case had other
repercussions… remember, he was also representing ANN in its lawsuits. About
three weeks after the Judge released Kuhn from the Sun-N-Fun case, Kuhn filed
separate letters requesting release as ANN's attorney in the Controlvision and
Liberty cases. In them, he says, "...said attorney has been instructed by the
client/Plaintiff that said Plaintiff wants said attorney to discontinue all
legal representation on the Plaintiff's behalf effective immediately..."
It looks to me like Zoom fired Kuhn as ANN's attorney after Kuhn refused to
continue to represent him the Sun-N-Fun lawsuit due to lack of payment. A
person with Campbell's large ego would undoubtedly react strongly to Kuhn's
implying he was a deadbeat.
At this point, the wheels started popping off the Campbell lawsuit roller
coaster. Within three weeks, ANN's lawsuit against Liberty had been dismissed
with prejudice (e.g., it cannot be re-filed). A month after that, ANN's suit
against Controlvision was also dismissed with prejudice.
http://ori2.polk-county.net/wb_or1/details.asp?doc_id=4182602&file_num=2007204201&doc_status=V
http://ori2.polk-county.net/wb_or1/details.asp?doc_id=4207629&file_num=2007228610&doc_status=V
In early November (after Campbell's deadline for finding a new attorney had
passed), Sun-N-Fun filed a motion to have the case dismissed. Surprisingly,
they filed for dismissal WITHOUT prejudice…meaning that Campbell would be able
to re-open the suit at a later date.
Not being a lawyer, I'm not sure why they didn't go for a dismissal with
prejudice. Looking online, though, I think I found the reason.
Remember Campbell's first lawsuit against SnF, which ended in Campbell's loss?
Many of you may not remember that he strung out the action longer by filing an
appeal (and lost again, a few months later). Consider the MacNaughton and Gunn
lawsuit against Zoom about seven years ago. After losing this case, Campbell
appealed three times (to no avail), stretching out the case for several years.
A dismissal WITHOUT prejudice, on the other hand, can't normally be appealed.
Campbell certainly can re-file the case, but that's just it: He would have to
start from scratch again. He can't just file a piece of paper that says, "on
such-and-such date, the judge did not act in accordance with…" He has to get
another attorney, and re-file the entire suit.
A Case Management Conference was scheduled for the 14th of November for Campbell
to present his new lawyer and for the Judge to rule on SnF's motion to dismiss.
Campbell appeared by telephone at the conference, reporting he had not yet found
a lawyer, but asking for another week. The request was granted.
And a week later… well, here's what the Judge says: "The reset hearing was set
for 9:30 AM on Tuesday, November 20, 2007, and began promptly at that time on
that date. The hearing was set for 15 minutes. The Court waited from 9:30 am
to 10:00 am for the Plaintiff to appear. When the Plaintiff failed to appear at
10:00 am, the Court concluded the hearing."
We don't know why Zoom failed to appear, or even to phone in like he'd done the
week before. Perhaps an emergency had come up. My guess is that he *didn't*
have a new attorney, and knew the judge would rule against him.
At that point was all over but the final gurgling swirl. The final order
dismissing the SnF case was signed on the 12th of December.
http://ori2.polk-county.net/wb_or1/details.asp?doc_id=4365391&file_num=2007250490&doc_status=V.
There are some interesting tidbits in this Order. The Judge says, "…Plaintiff
has failed to participate in the discovery process and, as well, has failed to
participate in this litigation." He also mentions that Campbell had been twice
scheduled for depositions in this case, and backed out both times. The second
deposition was scheduled as a two-day activity, with several SnF folks being
deposed, too. But like the Order says, Campbell canceled.
Interestingly enough, he had ALSO been schedule for a deposition in ANN's
Controlvision lawsuit…and had canceled THAT one, too.
So, what next? Zoom can certainly re-file this case, or bring an entirely
separate suit over SnF banning him in 2004, or 2005, or 2006, or 2007. The
information in the above order, plus the circumstances of the loss of his
attorney, will make it more difficult to find a new lawyer. But it certainly
wouldn't be impossible.
Will Campbell sue more ex-advertisers at SnF 2008? Campbell has claimed that
he's now living in North Carolina, but ANN is still registered in Florida.
http://tinyurl.com/38p9cq
Note that, for some reason, the corporate address has been changed to Green Cove
Springs, Florida, a bit over a hundred miles from its previous location in
Winter Haven. Campbell probably could have sued ex-advertisers from North
Carolina, but retaining a Florida address probably makes it easier to serve them
legal papers at Sun-N-Fun.
But *will* it happens? Only Zoom knows. Keep tuned in!
Ron Wanttaja
By the end of the year, all were dismissed. Most of the action occurred over
the past five months, and I've held off posting updates since things have been
fluid. It's been a month since the last court order, so the flurry is probably
over.
First, a couple of points. Please realize that I am *not* a lawyer, nor do I
have any legal background (beyond being sued by Mr. Campbell myself, of course
:-). Also, the only cases I'm addressing are those in Polk County, Florida,
where Zoom has filed most of his suits in the past. More suits may exist in
other jurisdictions. You may search for the dockets in Campbell's Polk County
cases using this web page: https://ori2.polk-county.net/ct_web1/search.asp.
We'll start with a recap in chronological order. Since 2002, Campbell and the
company he owns have filed six lawsuits in Polk County:
2002 Aero-News Network vs. Pulsar Aircraft
2002 Aero-News Network vs. Rotary Air Force
2003 James Campbell vs. Sun-N-Fun
2005 Aero-News Network vs. Powrachute
2005 Aero-News Network vs. Controlvision
2005 Aero-News Network vs. Liberty Aerospace
What was a typical ANN claim? In the Pulsar case…. "Suit is brought over banner
advertising for an Internet web site. Plaintiff contents that it agreed to and
did design and run such advertising on Defendant's behalf, and that Defendant
refused to compensate Plaintiff for these services despite having agreed to do
so. Defendant acknowledges having discussed advertising with Plaintiff but
denies that any final agreement was reached."
http://ori2.polk-county.net/wb_or1/details.asp?doc_id=2681308&file_num=2002109279&doc_status=V
In other words, Campbell alleged that Pulsar violated a verbal contract. The
settlement in the Rotary case also states that the alleged agreement was oral.
The settlements in the other three cases don't re-state the claim like the
earlier two.
As you'll see in the above link, Campbell lost his suit against Pulsar ("…no
contract was finalized") although Pulsar's request for compensation of its legal
expenses was denied.
(BTW, you might have to paste some of these links directly into your browser.
If all else fails, go to:
http://ori2.polk-county.net/wb_or1/or_sch_1.asp
… and use "aero news" as a search term.)
Rotary Air Force is a Canadian company, which means a Florida lawsuit couldn't
affect them directly. However, I suspect that if they'd ignored the suit and
allowed Campbell to gain a default judgment, they might be in danger of having
their equipment seized if they entered the US to attend Sun-n-Fun or Oshkosh.
They finally settled out-of-court after two years. Rotary agreed to pay a flat
$6,500 in exchange for dismissal. As you'll see in the settlement, Rotary made
its position clear: "It is understood that this settlement is the compromise
of a doubtful and disputed claim and the payment is not to be construed as an
admission of liability... said RELEASES deny liability and intend merely to
avoid further litigation...."
http://ori2.polk-county.net/wb_or1/details.asp?doc_id=3180274&file_num=2004110504&doc_status=V
At the next Sun-N-Fun after the settlement of the previous two cases (e.g.,
April 2005), Zoom sued three more companies: Liberty, Powrachute, and
Controlvision (I'll note here that all five companies were served AT the
Sun-N-Fun Fly-In; Rotary and Pulsar in '02, the other three in '05).
Zoom had a new attorney for these three cases, Mr. Phillip Kuhn. Campbell had
also hired Mr. Kuhn for his second lawsuit against Sun-N-Fun, filed in June
2003. This new claim was for Libel/Slander and Invasion of Privacy. I
previously posted the original suit, you can access it at:
http://tinyurl.com/34h63z
Sun-N-Fun's attorney (the same one they had for Zoom's original case) quickly
pointed out a couple of flaws in Campbell's complaint: First, the libel/slander
claims were directed mostly at a company HIRED by SnF to provide security. So
Zoom had to add the company, Dothan Security, as a co-defendant in this lawsuit.
Unlike the RAH-15 case, he did this in accordance to Florida law, by gaining the
judge's permission prior to adding a co-defendant.
The second move was related to Zoom's "Invasion of Privacy" claim, based on
Dothan posting Zoom's driver's license by the entry points to aid in identifying
him. The defendants pointed out that this use of a driver's license was allowed
by Florida law. Thus the invasion of privacy claim was dismissed early.
Dothan Security itself was dismissed in November 2005. No reason or basis is
given in the court order, other than "an amicable settlement...has been made."
A note later in the court order says, "each of the above parties is to bear
their own costs and attorney's fees" so it doesn't sound like any money changed
hands.
http://ori2.polk-county.net/wb_or1/details.asp?doc_id=3602428&file_num=2005268352&doc_status=V
The Powrachute case ended towards the tail end of 2006, with the other three
continuing into the new year. From what I can tell from the online docket,
Powrachute never did respond to Zoom's lawsuit. Campbell received a default
judgment in 2006, for about $22,300.
http://ori2.polk-county.net/wb_or1/details.asp?doc_id=3879116&file_num=2006222282&doc_status=V
I don't know whether Zoom actually collected on this judgment. The Powrachute
company that was sued dissolved not long after the suit was served, and a new
company in another state apparently bought the rights to the name and some of
the company assets.
In any case, a subsequent event hints that the judgment wasn't paid off: In
late August 2007, Mr. Kuhn asked the judge to dismiss him as Jim Campbell's
attorney in the Sun-N-Fun case.
Why? We don't know for sure. All that's available on the online case docket is
Kuhn's cover letter for his petition to withdraw, not the petition itself.
Kuhn's reasons for requesting being released as Campbell's attorney are not part
of the public record.
But we get a strong hint from the Judge's order granting Kuhn's motion to
withdraw as Zoom's attorney: The Judge's 12 September order says, "...there is
good cause to grant the Motion to Withdraw of Plaintiff's counsel pursuant to
Rule 4-1.16(b)(4)(5) of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct."
You can find the Rule at
http://www.ablelegalforms.com/flalawyerethics4116.html,
… but let me quote the specified sections:
--------------------------------------------------
"RULE 4-1.16 DECLINING OR TERMINATING REPRESENTATION
(a) ...
(b) When Withdrawal Is Allowed. Except as stated in subdivision (c), a
lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if withdrawal can be accomplished
without material adverse effect on the interests of the client, or if:
(1)...
(2)...
(3)...
(4) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer
regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the
lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;
(5) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on
the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client..."
----------------------------------------------------
To me, it looks like Campbell was not paying his legal bills in the SnF case.
It wouldn't be the first time. Campbell lost the attorney defending him in the
Fraud and Perjury lawsuit for the same reason, as well as another attorney in
suit against an ex-advertiser in the US AVIATOR days.
If that $22,300 judgment against Powrachute had indeed been collected, one would
have expected that Mr. Kuhn would have received a goodly portion. So either the
Powrachute settlement hadn't been collected or Zoom decided to NOT pay his
lawyer for another reason. Maybe he spent the money on his brand-new (albeit
used) Glasair, instead….:-)
The Judge's order allowed Zoom 60 days to find another attorney. Zoom asked for
ninety days, but was refused. The sixty days was from the date of the lawyer's
original request, so Zoom had until the end of October.
Kuhn's request to be dismissed as Campbell's attorney in the SnF case had other
repercussions… remember, he was also representing ANN in its lawsuits. About
three weeks after the Judge released Kuhn from the Sun-N-Fun case, Kuhn filed
separate letters requesting release as ANN's attorney in the Controlvision and
Liberty cases. In them, he says, "...said attorney has been instructed by the
client/Plaintiff that said Plaintiff wants said attorney to discontinue all
legal representation on the Plaintiff's behalf effective immediately..."
It looks to me like Zoom fired Kuhn as ANN's attorney after Kuhn refused to
continue to represent him the Sun-N-Fun lawsuit due to lack of payment. A
person with Campbell's large ego would undoubtedly react strongly to Kuhn's
implying he was a deadbeat.
At this point, the wheels started popping off the Campbell lawsuit roller
coaster. Within three weeks, ANN's lawsuit against Liberty had been dismissed
with prejudice (e.g., it cannot be re-filed). A month after that, ANN's suit
against Controlvision was also dismissed with prejudice.
http://ori2.polk-county.net/wb_or1/details.asp?doc_id=4182602&file_num=2007204201&doc_status=V
http://ori2.polk-county.net/wb_or1/details.asp?doc_id=4207629&file_num=2007228610&doc_status=V
In early November (after Campbell's deadline for finding a new attorney had
passed), Sun-N-Fun filed a motion to have the case dismissed. Surprisingly,
they filed for dismissal WITHOUT prejudice…meaning that Campbell would be able
to re-open the suit at a later date.
Not being a lawyer, I'm not sure why they didn't go for a dismissal with
prejudice. Looking online, though, I think I found the reason.
Remember Campbell's first lawsuit against SnF, which ended in Campbell's loss?
Many of you may not remember that he strung out the action longer by filing an
appeal (and lost again, a few months later). Consider the MacNaughton and Gunn
lawsuit against Zoom about seven years ago. After losing this case, Campbell
appealed three times (to no avail), stretching out the case for several years.
A dismissal WITHOUT prejudice, on the other hand, can't normally be appealed.
Campbell certainly can re-file the case, but that's just it: He would have to
start from scratch again. He can't just file a piece of paper that says, "on
such-and-such date, the judge did not act in accordance with…" He has to get
another attorney, and re-file the entire suit.
A Case Management Conference was scheduled for the 14th of November for Campbell
to present his new lawyer and for the Judge to rule on SnF's motion to dismiss.
Campbell appeared by telephone at the conference, reporting he had not yet found
a lawyer, but asking for another week. The request was granted.
And a week later… well, here's what the Judge says: "The reset hearing was set
for 9:30 AM on Tuesday, November 20, 2007, and began promptly at that time on
that date. The hearing was set for 15 minutes. The Court waited from 9:30 am
to 10:00 am for the Plaintiff to appear. When the Plaintiff failed to appear at
10:00 am, the Court concluded the hearing."
We don't know why Zoom failed to appear, or even to phone in like he'd done the
week before. Perhaps an emergency had come up. My guess is that he *didn't*
have a new attorney, and knew the judge would rule against him.
At that point was all over but the final gurgling swirl. The final order
dismissing the SnF case was signed on the 12th of December.
http://ori2.polk-county.net/wb_or1/details.asp?doc_id=4365391&file_num=2007250490&doc_status=V.
There are some interesting tidbits in this Order. The Judge says, "…Plaintiff
has failed to participate in the discovery process and, as well, has failed to
participate in this litigation." He also mentions that Campbell had been twice
scheduled for depositions in this case, and backed out both times. The second
deposition was scheduled as a two-day activity, with several SnF folks being
deposed, too. But like the Order says, Campbell canceled.
Interestingly enough, he had ALSO been schedule for a deposition in ANN's
Controlvision lawsuit…and had canceled THAT one, too.
So, what next? Zoom can certainly re-file this case, or bring an entirely
separate suit over SnF banning him in 2004, or 2005, or 2006, or 2007. The
information in the above order, plus the circumstances of the loss of his
attorney, will make it more difficult to find a new lawyer. But it certainly
wouldn't be impossible.
Will Campbell sue more ex-advertisers at SnF 2008? Campbell has claimed that
he's now living in North Carolina, but ANN is still registered in Florida.
http://tinyurl.com/38p9cq
Note that, for some reason, the corporate address has been changed to Green Cove
Springs, Florida, a bit over a hundred miles from its previous location in
Winter Haven. Campbell probably could have sued ex-advertisers from North
Carolina, but retaining a Florida address probably makes it easier to serve them
legal papers at Sun-N-Fun.
But *will* it happens? Only Zoom knows. Keep tuned in!
Ron Wanttaja