Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
15,093 characters extracted
—
1
RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
NICKLAUS_S,
Plaintiff,
v.
RIDGEWAY CREDIT UNION;
RIDGEWAY CREDIT UNION
CORPORATE SECURITY;
NERFCOOLKID1853,
Defendants.
Civil Action No.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Nicklaus_s (“Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned counsel,
seeking all available relief, in his complaint against Defendants Ridgeway Credit
Union (“Defendant Ridgeway Credit Union”), Ridgeway Credit Union Corporate
Security (“Defendant Ridgeway Credit Union Corporate Security”) (collectively,
“Employer Defendants”), and NerfCoolKid1853 (“Defendant Nerf”)
(“Defendants”), alleges as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This court has original jurisdiction over “all civil and criminal cases or
controversies.” Rid. Const. art. 5, § 4.
2. Venue is proper in this court because the actions and omissions alleged
in this complaint took place in the State of Ridgeway.
2
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Nicklaus_s is an individual, resident, and citizen of the State
of Ridgeway.
4. Defendant Ridgeway Credit Union is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Ridgeway.
5. Defendant Ridgeway Credit Union Corporate Security is a subsidiary
of the Ridgeway Credit Union.
6. Defendant NerfCoolKid1853 is an individual, resident, and citizen of
the State of Ridgeway.
FACTS
A. Ridgeway Credit Union
7. Employer Defendants purport to operate lawfully and as legitimate
security providers.
8. Employer Defendants produce statements, policies, and branding that
give rise to the reasonable belief by individuals, including Plaintiff, that its
employees are trained, regulated, authorized, and equipped to engage in security.
9. Employer Defendants have publically encouraged criminals to apply
for employment. They have stated that they will hire all people, so long as they are
a resident, are pending to the group, and have an account to engage in the community
server.
10. Employer Defendants have failed to provide adequate supervision,
training, or policies to govern the conduct of their employees.
3
B. Defendant Nerf
11. Upon information and belief, Defendant Nerf has eight arrest records.
12. Upon information and belief, Defendant Nerf was arrested on July 5,
2025 for criminally speeding in the excess of thirty miles per hour.
13. Defendant Nerf is an agent, representative, or employee of Employer
Defendants.
14. Upon information and belief, Defendant Nerf has been employed by
Employer Defendants since July 6, 2025.
15. Upon information and belief, Defendant Nerf has not been reprimanded
by Employer Defendants prior to the incident.
C. July 6 Incident
16. On or about July 6, 2025, Plaintiff was lawfully driving a blue vehicle
on a street in Palmer, Ridgeway.
17. Plaintiff was lawfully turning onto another street.
18. Plaintiff was suddenly and violently struck by a vehicle operated by
Defendant Nerf.
19. The vehicle was driving in opposing lanes of traffic.
20. The vehicle failed to signal.
21. The vehicle failed to yield the right of way to Plaintiff.
22. The vehicle bore the markings, insignia, and identification numbers
associated with Defendants.
4
23. At the time of the incident, Defendant Nerf was wearing a uniform
which bore the markings, insignia, and identification numbers associated with
Defendants.
24. At the time of the incident, Defendant Nerf appeared to be conducting
operations on behalf of Employer Defendants.
25. Following the impact, Plaintiff was turned upside down in his vehicle
and his vehicle was flipped.
26. After the collision, Defendant Nerf briefly slowed down but did not
come to a full stop.
27. Defendant Nerf continued driving down the street and drove away from
the scene of the incident without rendering assistance, calling emergency services,
or verifying the condition of Plaintiff.
28. Multiple vehicles which bore the markings, insignia, and identification
numbers associated with Employer Defendants were present in the immediate
vicinity during and after the incident, yet none intervened, provided aid, nor called
for emergency services.
D. Discipline
29. On or about July 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant
Nerf to Employer Defendants.
5
30. On or about July 8, 2025, Defendant Nerf received a recorded warning
for violation of Section 3002(a) of the Ridgeway Credit Union Corporate Security
Handbook.
31. Employer Defendants have wholly failed to meaningfully or
proportionally discipline or respond to the actions of Defendant Nerf and those other
uniformed members who stood by without intervention, instead opting for a recorded
warning.
32. Employer Defendants have failed to provide adequate supervision,
training, or policies to govern the conduct of their employees, including the
operation of marked vehicles and response procedures in the event of injury or
collision.
33. Employer Defendants continue to permit Defendant Nerf and others to
operate marked vehicles and conduct armed patrols without adequate supervision,
training, or policies, thereby creating a foreseeable risk of public harm.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Assault – 1 R. Stat. § 3103)
Against Defendant Nerf
34. All prior paragraphs within this complaint are incorporated as if they
were fully set forth herein.
35. Defendant Nerf intentionally and voluntarily collided with the
automobile that Plaintiff was operating.
6
36. Defendant Nerf caused Plaintiff to be in reasonable fear of immediate
harmful and offensive contact with his body, particularly by colliding with the
automobile that Plaintiff was operating.
37. The fear was reasonable because Defendant Nerf drove in a dangerous
way and because Defendant did collide, in a harmful and offensive manner, with the
automobile that Plaintiff was operating.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Battery – 1 R. Stat. § 3102)
Against Defendant Nerf
38. All prior paragraphs within this complaint are incorporated as if they
were fully set forth herein.
39. Defendant Nerf collided with the automobile that Plaintiff was driving.
40. Plaintiff did not consent to Defendant colliding with the automobile that
Plaintiff was operating.
41. The contact was harmful and offensive to Plaintiff because it caused
him injury and because a reasonable person would find it to be offensive.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence Per Se – 1 R. Stat. § 3106)
Against Defendant Nerf
42. All prior paragraphs within this complaint are incorporated as if they
were fully set forth herein.
7
43. At all relevant times, Defendant Nerf had a duty to operate his vehicle
in compliance with the laws of the State of Ridgeway, including:
a. R.V.C. § 7.22, which prohibits vehicular assault, defined as
operating a vehicle and intentionally striking a vehicle or person.
b. R.V.C. § 7.02, which prohibits reckless driving, defined as
driving in a manner which disregards the safety of persons or property.
c. R.V.C. § 7.08, which prohibits driving wrong way, defined as
driving the opposite way traffic is directed to follow.
d. R.V.C. § 7.09, which prohibits failure to maintain lane, defined
as operating a vehicle and failing to maintain within the displayed lane.
e. R.V.C. § 7.19, which prohibits failure to signal lane change,
defined as operating a vehicle and failing to signal a lane change using
left and right indicators.
f. R.V.C. § 7.28, which prohibits failure to yield, defined as failing
to yield the right of way to a vehicle.
44. Defendant Nerf violated these statutory duties by colliding into the
automobile that Plaintiff was operating and then fleeing the scene without stopping
or providing assistance.
45. The statutes violated by Defendant Nerf were enacted to protect persons
such as Plaintiff from the type of harm suffered here, namely a vehicle collision and
danger to life and safety.
8
46. As a direct and proximate result of these actions and omissions,
Plaintiff suffered injuries and has incurred, and will continue to incur, the loss of
time, enjoyment, and frustration of convenience.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence – 1 R. Stat. § 3105)
Against All Defendants
47. All prior paragraphs within this complaint are incorporated as if they
were fully set forth herein.
48. Defendant Nerf owed Plaintiff a duty to operate his vehicle with
reasonable care and in compliance with all applicable laws.
49. Defendant Nerf breached that duty by failing to yield, failing to
maintain lane, driving the wrong way, failing to signal, driving recklessly, colliding
with the automobile that Plaintiff was operating, and failing to render aid, call
emergency services, or verify the condition of Plaintiff after the collision.
50. Employer Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care
in the conduct of their security, patrol, and transportation operations.
51. Employer Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to ensure that their
employees, including but not limited to Defendant Nerf, were properly trained,
supervised, and fit to carry out the operations that they were instructed and entrusted
to perform.
9
52. Defendant Nerf was acting within the scope of his duties as an
employee of Employer Defendants when he collided with the automobile that
Plaintiff was operating and committed the tortious actions complained of herein.
53. The injuries, damages, and losses sustained by Plaintiff were directly
and proximately caused by a breach of these duties through the negligent, willful,
and wanton acts of Employer Defendants by and through Defendant Nerf, including
but not limited to the following:
a. In failing to exercise reasonable or slight care to operate a vehicle safely
in a populated area;
b. In failing to contact emergency services after colliding with the
automobile that Plaintiff was operating;
c. In assigning and permitting Defendant Nerf to operate a vehicle
equipped with emergency equipment on public roadways while acting
in a pseudo-security capacity without adequate training, supervision, or
oversight;
d. In allowing multiple other uniformed individuals employed by
Employer Defendants to stand by without intervening, assisting, or
responding to Plaintiff after the collision;
e. In knowingly employing individuals who have prior arrests and
convictions for gun-related and vehicle-related offenses;
10
f. In conducting itself in a reckless manner in its security operations in
public spaces;
g. In failing to draft or implement appropriate policies and procedures
regarding security operations, patrol operations, transportation
operations, public engagement, and emergency incident response;
h. In holding itself out as a lawful security entity while conducting
dangerous unauthorized or unregulated security functions; and
i. In other such particulars as may be shown through discovery or trial.
54. As a direct and proximate result of these actions and omissions,
Plaintiff suffered injuries and has incurred, and will continue to incur, the loss of
time, enjoyment, and frustration of convenience.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention)
Against Employer Defendants
55. All prior paragraphs within this complaint are incorporated as if they
were fully set forth herein.
56. Employer Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care
in the hiring, training, supervision, and retention of their employees, including but
not limited to Defendant Nerf.
57. Employer Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to ensure that their
employees, including but not limited to Defendant Nerf, were properly trained,
11
supervised, and fit to carry out the operations that they were instructed and entrusted
to perform.
58. Employer Defendants carry out security operations, patrol operations,
and transportation operations that present a foreseeable risk of harm if such
operations are carried out by unfit, untrained, or improperly supervised individuals.
59. Employer Defendants have breached their duties through the following
particulars, including but not limited to:
a. In hiring and deploying Defendant Nerf to conduct armed
vehicular patrols despite his unfitness, lack of appropriate training, and
unsuitability for such duties;
b. In failing to properly monitor, supervise, or restrict the activities
of Defendant Nerf while operating a vehicle equipped with emergency
equipment in populated areas;
c. In knowingly employing individuals who have prior arrests and
convictions for gun-related and vehicle-related offenses;
d. In failing to implement or enforce reasonable training standards,
safety protocols, or emergency response procedures for employees
operating in populated areas;
e. In failing to meaningfully or proportionally discipline Defendant
Nerf following the incident that injured Plaintiff;
12
f. In allowing their employees to ignore an injured individual
without providing aid;
g. In conducting dangerous unauthorized and unregulated security
operations, patrol operations, and transportation operations without
lawful authority, creating a foreseeable risk of public harm; and
h. In such other particulars as may be shown through discovery or
trial.
60. As a direct and proximate result of these actions and omissions,
Plaintiff suffered injuries and has incurred, and will continue to incur, the loss of
time, enjoyment, and frustration of convenience.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Failure to Warn)
Against Employer Defendants
61. All prior paragraphs within this complaint are incorporated as if they
were fully set forth herein.
62. Employer Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care
in warning the public, including Plaintiff, of the foreseeable dangers associated with
their operations, personnel, and deployment of armored vehicles and armed patrols
in populated areas.
63. Employer Defendants undertook and advertised security, patrol, and
transportation functions in a manner that gave rise to public reliance and the
appearance of lawful, regulated, and competent authority.
13
64. Employer Defendants failed to warn the public of the risks posed by
untrained and unsupervised personnel conducting vehicular and armed patrols in
populated areas.
65. As a direct and proximate result of these actions and omissions,
Plaintiff suffered injuries and has incurred, and will continue to incur, the loss of
time, enjoyment, and frustration of convenience.
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the court enters judgment in its favor and
against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:
a. Enjoining Employer Defendants from conducting unlawful security,
patrol, and transportation operations;
b. Awarding compensatory damages to Plaintiff in an amount to be
determined;
c. Awarding punitive damages to Plaintiff not to exceed the statutory
limit;
d. Awarding pre- and post-judgment interest;
e. Awarding the costs of this action, including attorney fees, to Plaintiff;
f. Such further relief as the court deems just and proper.
14
Dated: July 12, 2025
Lander, Mayflower Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Nicklaus_s
Nicklaus_s (Bar No. 10241)
Counsel of Record
Nicklaus Feelings LLP
Lander Civic Center, Suite 324
Lander, Mayflower 19000
Tel: (212) 558-4000
Fax: (212) 558-3588
Email: [email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff
