Filing # 48282156 E-Filed 10/31/2016 11:51:29 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT

OF THE THIRTEENTH CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Civil Division

VICKI CARLL,
Plaintiff,

CASE NO.
Division

v.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

a foreign corporation,
ARISMENDY ROSARIO, individually,
and RASHAD KIRKLAND, individually,
Defendants,

____________________________ /
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff VICKI CARLL, by and through her undersigned attorneys, sues Defendants
WAL-MART STORES, INC., a foreign corporation, ARISMENDY ROSARIO, individually, and
RASHAD KIRKLAND, individually, and states:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This is an action for damages in excess of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) exclusive of
attorneys fees and costs based on the illegal assault and detention of the Plaintiff and false
accusations of retail theft against the Plaintiff by the Defendant, through its authorized agents,
servants and employees.
2. At all times material, Plaintiff, Vicki Carll (Ms. Carll) was a resident of Hillsborough
County, Florida and a customer and business invitee of the Defendant.

3. At all times material, WAL-MART Stores, Inc. (WAL-MART) was a foreign

corporation authorized to do business in Florida, which owns, controls and/or maintains thousands
of retail centers marketing a wide variety of products and services to the public throughout the
State of Florida and in Hillsborough County.
4. Defendant, ARISMENDY ROSARIO (Mr. Rosario), was at all times material hereto, a
resident of Hillsborough County, Florida and an employee of WAL-MART.
5. Defendant, RASHAD KIRKLAND (Mr. Mr. Kirkland), was at all times material hereto,
a resident of Hillsborough County, Florida and an employee of WAL-MART.
6. The allegations set forth herein and the events forming the basis for this action took place
at the WAL- MART retail store located at North Pointe Plaza, 14941 North Dale Mabry Highway,
Tampa, Florida 33618 (referred to herein as the WAL-MART Store, or the subject premises,
store or location).
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
7. Plaintiff, Ms. Carll, is a 57-year old disabled mother. She is an ordained minister and
deaconess of her Church, Revealing Truth Ministries, and has also served as Childrens Minister
at the Church, responsible for Bible instruction and studies for children of the Church membership
since 2011. She is the owner of her own home and lives modestly.
8. At all times material to this action and prior to the events described herein, Ms. Carll had
been a frequent retail customer of WAL-MART stores.
9. On or about January 2, 2014, however, Ms. Carll entered the subject WAL-MART store to
shop and, in particular, to buy dog food for her dog, Manny, her small 11-year-old Yorkie-Jack
Russell mix terrier. On this date and at the time of Ms. Carlls arrival, the WAL-MART Store was
open for business to members of the public and its customers, including Ms. Carll, and she was

welcomed and invited into the store by WAL-MART employees upon her arrival.
10. Prior to arriving at the store and in preparation for and in anticipation of making one or
more purchases at WAL-MART, Ms. Carll cashed a check at her nearby bank for the sum of five
hundred dollars ($500.00), which was in her wallet and kept in her purse as she shopped.

Events at Wal Mart Prior to Ms. Carlls Arrival

11.

On January 2, 2014, Defendant, Arismendy Rosario, had recently been hired by WAL-

MART and was assigned to loss prevention/asset protection at the subject WAL-MART Store.
Specifically, Mr. Rosario was assigned by WAL- MART to work as a floor walker, which is a
position maintained by WAL- MART employees at all WAL- MART retail locations. The
function of the floor walker is to patrol the WAL-MART Store and to be on the lookout for
suspicious activity, particularly instances of suspected shoplifting, or retail theft. Mr. Rosario, and
all WAL- MART floor walkers, are specifically authorized and instructed by WAL- MART to
detain customers for any instances of suspected shoplifting. Such detentions are known in WALMART vernacular as making a stop. Pursuant to WAL-MART policy, all stops of customers
and of persons suspected of retail theft are to be conducted in a professional, responsible manner,
without causing harm to the person who is the subject of the stop.
12.

January 2, 2014, the day of Ms. Carlls arrival and the subsequent events described herein,

was Mr. Rosarios first day on the job and he had never before carried out any stop of a customer
or person suspected of retail theft by himself. Prior to his assignment at the subject store, Mr.
Rosario had received about one month of training at a different WAL-MART store, which
training consisted primarily of accompanying a more experienced floor walker to learn the job and
what was expected of him.

13.

On the subject date, consistent with WAL- MART practice and policy for its floor walkers,

Mr. Rosario was patrolling the subject store in plainclothes, in order to allow him blend in with
the customers and so as not to allow him to be immediately identifiable as a WAL- MART security
guard. He was not wearing a WAL-MART uniform, but had previously been provided with a
WAL-MART badge.
14.

On this date, Mr. Rosarios immediate supervisor was the Defendant, Rashad Kirkland,

who was also an employee of WAL-MART. On January 2, 2014, Mr. Kirkland was wearing a
WAL-MART uniform and was acting as Mr. Rosarios immediate manager or supervisor on the
retail floor.

Ms. Carls Suspicious Activities:

15.

After obtaining shopping cash and spending money in the amount of $500 from her bank,

Ms. Carll proceeded to WAL MART and entered the store and selected a shopping cart from the
cart storage area inside the main entrance. After browsing the aisles for a short time, Ms. Carll
proceeded to the pet food section. There, the first item Ms. Carll picked out for purchase was a
large bag of dog food for Manny, which she took from the shelf and placed in her shopping cart.
16.

While in the pet section of the store and near the dog food, WAL- MART had also set up

and maintained a retail display of available flea and tick medications for dogs. On passing the
display, Ms. Carll picked up a box of the flea and tick medication to read the instructions and
applications printed on the box. As she put on her glasses, Ms. Carll noticed that this particular
box of flea and tick medication had already been opened by someone else, but it appeared that the
contents of the box consisting of several individually packaged doses of canine medication were still inside and were undisturbed.

17.

Holding the box of flea and tick medication in her hand, Ms. Carll continued walking as

she read the instructions, keeping the box in her hand, until she reached another section of the store
where yoga videos were on display. At this point, Ms. Carll realized that the medication she was
looking at was meant for dogs much larger than her Manny, who weighs less than 20 pounds, so
she returned box and its contents to a nearby shelf. At no time had Ms. Carll removed any of the
individual medicine doses from the box she had simply held the box in her hand while walking
and reading the directions.
18.

After returning the box of flea and tick medication and its contents to the shelf, Ms. Carll

then proceeded to the register to pay for her dog food and check out.

WAL-MART Super-Sleuth Rosario Sets Up His First Arrest:

19.

Unbeknownst to Ms. Carll, at some point soon after she entered the store, she had been

seen by the new floor walker, Mr. Rosario, who had decided to follow her from a distance.
Unknown to Ms. Carll or any other customer at that time, Mr. Rosario had an ulterior plan and
motive for which Ms. Carll seemed to be the perfect victim.
20.

As he followed and covertly surveilled Ms. Carll, Rosario had seen her pick up the box of

flea and tick medication and watched from hiding as she returned it to the shelf.
21.

As Ms. Carll proceeded to the check-out register, Mr. Rosario secretly followed behind her

and surreptitiously grabbed the box of flea and tick medication from the shelf where Ms. Carll had
returned it. Rosario then went to the main entrance/exit area of the store where all customers exit
after checking out. There, he sat on a bench just inside the main doors and waited for Ms. Carll to
approach, still holding the box of pet medication but trying to keep it concealed from view.
22.

As he sat on the bench waiting for Ms. Carlls approach, Mr. Rosario removed the

individual doses from the medication box and laid them on the ground under the bench where he
sat in wait for Ms. Carll. As would soon become clear, Rosarios seemingly inexplicable behavior
was actually part of an elaborate plan concocted by Rosario to frame an innocent shopper and
allow him to make an arrest, or stop, on his very first day on the job, thereby ingratiating himself
with his WAL-MART employer.
23.

After reaching the check-out register and paying for Mannys food, Ms. Carll totally

unaware of Rosarios plan to falsely accuse her - innocently made her way to the WAL-MART
Store exit, pushing her shopping cart containing the bag of dog food.
24.

At no time did Ms. Carll have the slightest inkling that Mr. Rosario had been following

her; or that he had picked up the box of pet medication after she returned it to the shelf; or that he
was now lying in wait for her by the exit doors; or that he had pre-planned her arrest in order to
advance himself with WAL-MART.
25.

Having completed her checkout and paid for her purchases, and still completely unaware

of any of Mr, Rosarios bizarre behavior, Ms. Carll left the checkout area and headed toward the
main entrance/exit, where Mr. Rosario was waited in ambush on the bench just inside the main
entrance doors. At this point, everything had thus far apparently proceeded exactly according to
Rosarios plan, which he would soon bring to fruition.

Super Sleuth Rosario Makes His First Arrest

26.

As she passed by the bench where Mr. Rosario lay in wait and then exited through the main

entrance, Ms. Carll was immediately followed out the door by Mr. Rosario, who leapt off his bench
as soon as she passed and fell in directly behind her. As she passed out the main doorway followed
immediately by Mr. Rosario, Ms. Carll was physically accosted by Rosario on the sidewalk just

outside the main entrance doors of the store. With his full force and strength, Rosario physically
took hold of Ms. Carll and began dragging her by force back inside the store to a spot next to the
bench where Rosario had previously placed the pet medication doses.
27.

As he forcefully and physically accosted Ms. Carll outside the store entrance, Mr. Rosario

was joined by the Defendant, Rashad Kirkland, who rushed out the door behind Rosario and,
together with Rosario, also physically lay hands on Ms. Carll with his full force and strength.
Together, the two Defendants then dragged Ms. Carll back inside the doors to the preselected spot
next to the bench and within reach of the spot where Mr. Rosario had planted the pet medicine
doses as he waited there for Ms. Carll to arrive from the checkout register.
28.

Once they had dragged Ms. Carll back inside the store and were next to the bench where

Rosario had waited, Rosario and Kirkland forcefully threw Ms. Carll to the ground. The use of
such physical force was completely unnecessary and malicious in nature, as Ms. Carll had offered
no physical resistance and posed no danger whatsoever to either Rosario or Kirkland. The force
of being thrown to the ground caused Ms. Carll intense pain, as she had a pre-existing back injury
from an automobile accident. The take-down by Rosario and Kirkland severely aggravated Ms.
Carlls condition and caused her additional injuries more particularly described below.
29.

As Ms. Carll lay on the floor where she had been forced down, Mr. Rosario then reached

under the bench and pretended to find the doses of pet medication scattered there beneath the
bench. Feigning surprise, Rosario then loudly and falsely - proclaimed that Ms. Carll had
attempted to steal the medicine by hiding it in her sleeve, and that she must have dropped it when
she was forced to the ground.
30.

Ms. Carlls injuries and the pain she suffered as the result of being thrown to the ground

were ignored by Messrs. Rosario and Kirkland, whose complete attention was focused on the

alleged theft, and in recognizing and complimenting Mr. Rosario and each other on what a
seemingly incredible job Rosario had done on his very first day in saving WAL-MART from a
theft.

Rosarios Frame-Up and False Arrest are Revealed by Surveillance Cameras

31.

After throwing Ms. Carll to the ground and pretending to find the medication he claimed

Ms. Carll had dropped, Mr. Rosario then falsely claimed that he had witnessed Ms. Carll take and
conceal the pet medication while inside the store. He said that he had then sprung a trap for her
and had caught her in the act of trying to steal the pet medicine doses. In the process, of course,
Rosario implied that he himself had done a masterful job of identifying and thwarting this criminal
enterprise on his very first day on the job. In this manner, Mr. Rosario sought to ingratiate himself
with his WAL-MART employers and sought personal recognition and commendation for being
such a tough and resourceful security officer.
32.

Apparently unbeknownst to Mr. Rosario, however, WAL-MART maintained security

surveillance cameras in the area of the store entrance which recorded the events of that day.
Specifically, the video footage from those cameras revealed the following:
a.

The video reveals Mr. Rosario himself removing the individual pet medication
doses from its box as he sat on the bench awaiting Ms. Carll to arrive from the
checkout register;

b. The video clearly shows Mr. Rosario placing the individual medication doses
on the ground underneath the bench where he sat and waited for Ms. Carll to
arrive from the checkout register;
c. The video shows Ms. Carll passing the bench where Mr. Rosario sat and
proceeding out the store entrance, whereupon Mr. Rosario jumps up and follows
her out the doors;
d. Once outside the main doors, the video shows Mr. Rosario forcibly grabbing
8

hold of Ms. Carll and shows Mr. Kirkland rushing outside and also physically
taking hold of Ms. Carll, despite the fact that she offered no resistance
whatsoever;
e. The video shows Rosario and Kirkland forcefully dragging Ms. Carll back
inside the store entrance to the point next to Rosarios bench under which he
had hidden the medication;
f. The video shows Messrs. Rosario and Kirkland throwing Ms. Carll to the
ground next to Rosarios bench;
g. The video then shows Mr. Rosario reaching back under the bench to retrieve
the pet medications from where he had placed them so that he could falsely
accuse Ms. Carll of having tried to steal them.

33.

Because of WAL-MARTs own surveillance video footage, which Mr. Rosario apparently

either forgot or simply failed to take into account, the absolute innocence of Ms. Carll and the
nature of Mr. Rosarios insidious attempts to falsely accuse her of theft could hardly have been
more clearly revealed. Thus, WAL-MART knew, or certainly should have known, almost from
the instant of the arrest, that the accusations of theft against Ms. Carll were completely fabricated
and totally without foundation.

WAL-MARTs Incomprehensible Decision to Pursue Criminal Charges Against Ms. Carll

34.

A large retailer such as WAL-MART has considerable influence with law enforcement

and the local prosecutors in the decision to pursue criminal prosecutions of persons accused of
committing retail theft at its stores. Generally, no criminal charges will be pursued against such
persons unless the retailer consents and assists in the prosecution. As such, it was largely within
the discretion of WAL-MART whether criminal theft charges would be brought and pursued
against Ms. Carll for the alleged theft of the pet medication.

35.

After the passage of no more than one hour after the forced takedown and false arrest

scheme of Mr. Rosario, WAL-MART had available to it the video surveillance footage that
conclusively demonstrated Ms. Carlls innocence and the attempted frame-up by its employee, Mr.
Rosario.
36.

WAL-MART therefore knew or should have known without question that Ms. Carll was

innocent of any allegations of theft and that its own employee had falsely accused her and planted
false evidence to support the false accusations.
37.

WAL-MART therefore knew that any criminal charges against Ms. Carll should have been

dismissed at the earliest possible stage of the proceedings.

38.

Notwithstanding the uncontroverted evidence of innocence from its own surveillance

cameras, WAL-MART took the almost incomprehensible step of initiating criminal charges and
proceedings against Ms. Carll. WAL-MART therefore intentionally and recklessly forced Ms.
Carll to undergo the fear and humiliation of having to face criminal charges and forced her to live
for a substantial time with the fear of being wrongfully convicted of a charge on which she was
innocent. Ms. Carll had to endure the humiliation of being processed into the criminal justice
system all the way through a jury trial, which WAL-MART knew absolutely was without basis
and which WAL-MART knew had the potential of convicting an innocent person of criminal
charges that had been fabricated and invented by WAL-MARTs own employee.
39.

Instead of arranging for the immediate dismissal of the charges against Ms. Carll, WAL-

MART stubbornly continued the charade of criminal theft proceedings against Ms. Carll all the
way through a jury trial, at which Ms. Carll was forced to endure and answer charges of theft
before a Hillsborough County jury and unnecessarily forced her to contemplate the possibility of
conviction for a crime which she did not commit and forced her to contemplate the possibility of

10

having to live the rest of her life with the stigma of that potential conviction.
40.

Fortunately, Ms. Carll was acquitted by her jury at trial of all charges. In fact, having seen

the video footage demonstrating Ms. Carlls absolute innocence, Ms. Carlls criminal jury was out
in deliberations for less than one minute before exonerating Ms. Carll of all charges. Such an
immediate acquittal by a jury on any criminal charge is virtually unheard of and this jurys quick
and decisive action speaks to the unsubstantiated nature of the charges against Ms. Carll and
reveals her criminal prosecution to have been no more than a complete farce and an absolute abuse
of the legal system by WAL-MART and prosecutors.1
41.

At any time during the criminal proceedings against Ms. Carll, WAL-MART could have

sought dismissal of the charges. Instead, WAL-MART made the conscious and considered
decision to continue to ignore the exculpatory evidence of its own video footage and allowed its
employees to take the witness stand under oath and falsely accuse Ms. Carll of an act of theft which
WAL-MART knew she had not committed.
42.

While at first blush, WAL-MARTs actions in going forward with criminal charges against

Ms. Carll seems incomprehensible in light of WAL-MARTs possession of the absolute evidence
of her innocence.

Upon reflection, however, the reasons for WAL-MARTs actions becomes

clear: it is obvious that after seeing its own video footage and witnessing the outrageous actions
of its employees in setting up and framing Ms. Carll, WAL-MART likely immediately recognized
that it faced potentially catastrophic civil liability for what its employees had done to Ms. Carll.

Unfortunately, the decision by the Hillsborough County State Attorney to proceed with the
charges against Ms. Carll and to take this farce all the way through a jury trial speaks more to the
desire to maintain WAL-MARTs good graces, political influence and financial support in an
election year than it does to the duty of a prosecutor to seek the truth and to subject a citizen to
criminal charges only when there is a valid and good faith basis to believe that the person is, in
fact, guilty of those charges. That sense of duty was conspicuously absent in this case, according
to Ms. Carlls jury.
1

11

WAL-MART apparently believed that if it did not at least make a showing of pursuing criminal
charges against Ms. Carll, WAL-MART would effectively be admitting its own civil liability and
culpability and would be held to answer for what happened to Ms. Carll. WAL-MART apparently
believed in the old maxim that the best defense is a good offense, and by taking the offensive
against Ms. Carll even if completely unfounded WAL-MART thought it would lessen the
impact of its civil liability. Upon information and belief, this was the motivation of WAL-MART
in its pursuit of criminal charges against Ms. Carll.
43.

In making the decision to pursue criminal charges against Ms. Carll, however, WAL-

MART exponentially increased its own liability and culpability because it allowed its employees
to falsely testify under oath and improperly used and abused the criminal justice system for its own
pecuniary advantage. As such, and on information and belief, WAL-MART was apparently far
more concerned with protecting itself from the potential civil lawsuit that WAL-MART knew was
likely to come based on the events described herein. WAL-MART apparently believed that its
civil liability would be more easily established if WAL-MART did not pursue criminal
proceedings against Ms. Carll. Therefore, WAL-MART apparently decided to carry the charade
of criminal proceedings to their ultimate conclusion by jury trial just to try to protect itself from
civil liability by not admitting the outrageous wrongdoing of its own employees. In this decision,
clearly, the consequences and harm that would be suffered by Ms. Carll in having to answer to
these baseless charges was a non-factor in WAL-MARTs decision.
44.

As the direct and proximate result of the actions of WAL-MART and its employees, agents,

servants and representatives as set forth herein, Ms. Carll suffered, and continues to suffer and has
incurred damages that include, but are not necessarily limited to, bodily injury, physical pain and
suffering, physical inconvenience and discomfort, aggravation of pre-existing conditions, loss of

12

time, and economic losses. Ms. Carll has further suffered mental and emotional damages which
include mental pain and suffering such as embarrassment, humiliation, deprivation of liberty, and
disgrace and injury to her feelings and reputation. The embarrassment, humiliation and damage
to her reputation is even more profound because of Ms. Carlls position and standing in her Church,
which has made these false accusations of theft and dishonesty all the more difficult to bear. As
the result of the actions of WAL-MART and the stigma of its unfounded charges, Ms. Carll has
suffered further by being unable to participate in various Church social and service functions and
groups and has suffered an extreme loss of social confidence and has lost her former sense of ease
in social situations. Her duties at the Church have largely had to be assumed by others. She has
been placed on anti-anxiety medications which she never before had to take and suffers from a
fear of being in public and in social situations, which has severely hindered her service to her
Church, which is one of the most important aspects of her life. Ms. Carll no longer shops at public
retail stores unless absolutely necessary and makes her purchases on line whenever possible. If
forced to enter a retail establishment, Ms. Carll is forced to take medication to control her fear and
anxiety. Further, as the result of her injuries and the aggravation of her previous conditions, Ms.
Carll, who was extremely active prior to these events, is no longer able to enjoy activities such as
body building, water skiing, jet skiing, snow skiing, and sky diving, all of which were activities
she enjoyed and participated in previously. All aspects of Ms. Carlls life have been severely and
adversely impacted as the direct and proximate result of the malicious, reckless and intentional
acts of the Defendants as set forth herein.
45.

All conditions precedent to bringing this action have been performed or, in the alternative,

have occurred or been waived.

46.

At all times material, the actions of WAL- MART employees including, but not necessarily

13

limited to Mr. Rosario and Mr. Kirkland, as set forth herein, were taken within the course and
scope of their employment with WAL- MART and were at times taken with the intent to serve and
act for the benefit of WAL- MART.
47.

At all times material, Ms. Carll was a retail customer and business invitee of WAL- MART,

to whom WAL-MART had a duty to protect from risk or danger that was or should have been
foreseeable and from the negligence or malfeasance of its agents, servants and employees.
48.

All causes of action set forth below are brought against WAL-MART individually,

cumulatively and in the alternative.

COUNT I
(General Negligence as to WAL-MART)
49.

All of the general and common allegations are applicable to this count and are therefore

incorporated herein.
50.

The actions of Messrs. Rosario, Kirkland, and any other WAL-MART employees were

facilitated by, and were only possible because of their employment with or on behalf of WALMART and their position as WAL MART employees.
51.

At all times material, Messrs. Rosario, Kirkland, and any other WAL-MART employees

were acting under the supervision and control of WAL-MART through its store managers and
other supervisors.
52.

At all times, WAL-MART had a duty to its customers, such as Ms. Carll, to properly

supervise, direct, and control its employees so that their actions would not present a risk of harm
or a danger to customers and persons within the store. WAL-MART breached this duty and was
negligent in ways which include, but may not be limited to, one or more of the following:

14

a. failure to adequately screen out undesirable or unsuitable candidates during the

hiring process for security or loss prevention positions or other positions in which
direct interaction with customers is likely to occur;
b. failure to adequately train its employees, particularly those who are to be employed
in security or loss prevention positions or other positions in which direct interaction
with customers is likely to occur;
c. failure to provide or conduct adequate supervision of its employees or to adequately
monitor their interaction with customers particularly with respect to those
employees engaged in security or loss prevention duties;
d. failure to establish and implement appropriate operating rules, procedures, and
regulations designed to prevent occurrences of wrongful accusation, arrest and
detention of persons suspected of retail theft at its store locations, such as the WALMART Store, or in the alternative, failure to provide adequate supervision to
enforce any and all such rules, procedures, or regulations to prevent such
occurrences at its retail locations, such as the WAL-MART Store;
e. failure to have appropriate safeguards in place for the review and evaluation of
suspected instances of retail theft, such as to eliminate or minimize the prosecution
of cases such as Ms. Carll, in which the evidence clearly revealed her innocence.

53.

As described herein and at all times material, it was reasonably foreseeable to WAL-

MART that injury or damage to its customers could occur in the event that its employees,
particularly its security and loss prevention employees, were not properly supervised or controlled,
and that the failure of WAL-MART to properly supervise or control its employees would create a
zone of risk within its premises in which its customers would be in danger from the malfeasance
of its employees.
54.

Ms. Carll was at all times a customer within WAL-MARTs premises and was within the

zone of risk and danger created by WAL-MARTs failure to properly supervise or control its
employees.

15

55.

Notwithstanding the foreseeability of harm to its customers, WAL MART was negligent

and allowed the acts and omissions set forth herein, one or more of which resulted in the false
accusation and arrest of Ms. Carll as described herein.
56.

As the direct and proximate result of the negligence of WAL-MART as set forth herein,

Ms. Carll has suffered injury and has incurred damages as described above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff VICKI CARLL demands judgment for damages against the
Defendant, WAL-MART STORES, INC., plus interest, costs, and attorneys fees, if applicable.
Ms. Carll further demands judgment for special damages as to the expenses, costs, and attorneys
fees stemming from her legal defense to the false criminal charges of theft and her ensuing trial.

COUNT II
(Battery as to Rosario & Kirkland)
57.

Plaintiff incorporates all of the general and common allegations with the exception of

paragraphs 31 thru 43, inclusive, which are not applicable to this count.
58. As set forth herein, during their arrest of Ms. Carll, WAL MART employees Rosario and
Kirkland, intended to and did make physical contact with Ms. Carll.
59. At all times material, the physical contact from WAL MART employees Rosario and Kirkland
was without the consent of Ms. Carll.
60. The contact by WAL MART employees Rosario and Kirkland caused injury and damages to
Ms. Carll as set forth herein, for which Ms. Carll seeks recompense from WAL MART.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff VICKI CARLL demands judgment for damages against the
Defendants, ARISMENDY ROSARIO and RASHAD KIRKLAND, plus interest, costs, and
attorneys fees, if applicable. Ms. Carll further demands judgment for special damages as to the

16

expenses, costs, and attorneys fees stemming from her legal defense to the false criminal charges
of theft and her ensuing trial.

COUNT III
(False Imprisonment as to all Defendants)
61.

Plaintiff incorporates all of the general and common allegations with the exception of

paragraphs 31 thru 43, inclusive, which are not applicable to this count.
62.

The actions of WAL-MART, by and through its employees including, but not limited to,

Rosario and Kirkland, caused the unlawful detention of Ms. Carll against her will, depriving her
of her liberty and freedom of movement, and preventing her from exercising her lawful right to
leave the WAL-MART Store premises.
63.

The detention of Ms. Carll was against her will and without her consent, and was achieved

by force or threat of force on the part of WAL- MART through the actions of Rosario and Kirkland.
64.

This detention of Ms. Carll and the deprivation of her liberty was undertaken by the

Defendants without legal authority or color of legal authority.

65.

As the direct and proximate result of her unlawful detention by the Defendants as set forth

herein, Ms. Carll has suffered injury and has incurred damages as described above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff VICKI CARLL demands judgment for damages against the
Defendants, plus interest, costs, and attorneys fees, if applicable. Ms. Carll further demands
judgment for special damages as to the expenses, costs, and attorneys fees stemming from her
legal defense to the false criminal charges of theft and her ensuing trial.

17

COUNT IV
(Malicious Prosecution as to WAL-MART)
66.

All of the general and common allegations are applicable to this count and are therefore

incorporated herein.
67.

Due to the actions of WAL MART and at the behest of WAL MART as described herein,

criminal proceedings against Ms. Carll were initiated.

68.

The criminal proceedings that had been instigated by WAL-MART against Ms. Carll

resulted in the almost immediate acquittal of Ms. Carll following less than one minute of jury
deliberation and the proceedings were therefore terminated in her favor.
69.

At the time of its decision to institute and pursue criminal charges against Ms. Carll, WAL-

MART had in its possession its own surveillance video which completely exonerated Ms. Carll
and clearly depicted the complicity and scheme of Mr. Rosario to falsely accuse Ms. Carll.
Notwithstanding its possession of this exculpatory evidence, WAL- MART made the considered
choice to proceed with the criminal charges against Ms. Carll without regard for the truth and
without regard for the consequences to Ms. Carll and allowed or may even have directed its
employees to falsely testify under oath concerning the alleged guilt of Ms. Carll when both WALMART and its employees knew, or at the very lease should have known, that such testimony was
false and untrue. As such, the prosecution of Ms. Carll by WAL-MART was conducted with such
malice, reckless disregard for the truth, and/or was so completely without probable cause as to
itself be completely reckless and was undertaken with willful disregard for the consequences.
70.

As the direct and proximate result of the improper criminal prosecution by WAL-MART,

Ms. Carll has suffered injury and has incurred damages as described above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff VICKI CARLL demands judgment for damages against the
Defendant, WAL-MART STORES, INC., plus interest, costs, and attorneys fees, if applicable.
18

Ms. Carll further demands judgment for special damages as to the expenses, costs, and attorneys
fees stemming from her legal defense to the false criminal charges of theft and her ensuing trial.

COUNT V
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress as to all Defendants)
71.

All of the general and common allegations are applicable to this count and are therefore

incorporated herein.
72.

As described herein and at all times material, the conduct and actions of WAL-MART with

regard to Carll, by and through its employees including, but not limited to, Messrs. Rosario and
Kirkland, together with the subsequent conduct and actions of WAL-MART in pursuing criminal
charges against Ms. Carll was reckless and/or intentional in nature.
73.

At all times material, the above described conduct and actions of the Defendants with

regard to Ms. Carll, were such as to be considered extreme and outrageous in nature and were
odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community and within the community of Hillsborough
County.
74.

As described herein and at all times material, the conduct and actions of the Defendants

with regard to Ms. Carll caused Ms. Carll to suffer emotional distress, which was and continues to
be severe in nature and which is ongoing.
75.

As the direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants as set forth herein, Ms.

Carll has suffered injury and has incurred damages as described above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff VICKI CARLL demands judgment for damages against the
Defendants, plus interest, costs, and attorneys fees, if applicable. Ms. Carll further demands
judgment for special damages as to the expenses, costs, and attorneys fees stemming from her

19

legal defense to the false criminal charges of theft and her ensuing trial.
COUNT VI
(Vicarious Liability)
76.

All of the general and common allegations are applicable to this count and are therefore

incorporated herein.
77.

WAL-MART is at all times material, vicariously responsible for the actions or omissions

of its employees as set forth herein and is legally responsible for any damages caused or incurred
as the result of these events.
78.

As the direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of its employees, agents or

servants as described herein, Ms. Carll has suffered injury and has incurred damages as described
above for which WAL MART is vicariously liable.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff VICKI CARLL demands judgment for damages against the
Defendant, WAL-MART STORES, INC., plus interest, costs, and attorneys fees, if applicable.
Ms. Carll further demands judgment for special damages as to the expenses, costs, and attorneys
fees stemming from her legal defense to the false criminal charges of theft and her ensuing trial.

COUNT VII
(Respondeat Superior)
79.

All of the general and common allegations are applicable to this count and are therefore

incorporated herein.
80.

In addition to and in the alternative to the counts set forth herein, WAL-MART is

responsible for the actions of Messrs. Rosario, Kirkland, and any other WAL-MART employees
for all harms resulting to Ms. Carll under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
81.

As the direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of its employees, agents or
20

servants as described herein, Ms. Carll has suffered injury and has incurred damages as described
above for which WAL MART is vicariously liable.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff VICKI CARLL demands judgment for damages against the
Defendant, WAL-MART STORES, INC., plus interest, costs, and attorneys fees, if applicable.
Ms. Carll further demands judgment for special damages as to the expenses, costs, and attorneys
fees stemming from her legal defense to the false criminal charges of theft and her ensuing trial.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff VICKI CARLL demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Respectfully Submitted,
s/ Barry A. Cohen
BARRY A. COHEN
Florida Bar No.: 0096478
bcohen@tampalawfirm.com
jhalle@tampalawfirm.com
MICHAEL W. GAINES
Florida Bar No. 775614
mgaines@tampalawfirm.com
mwalsh@tampalawfirm.com
BARRY A. COHEN, P.A.
201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1950
Tampa, Florida 33602
(813) 225-1655 (Telephone)
(813) 225-1921 (Facsimile)
Attorneys for Plaintiff

21