The President of American Airlines and the the lawsuit against one of his customers for numerous calls to talk to him personally

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. Index No.

Plaintiff,

-against- VERIFIED COMPLAINT

WILFREDO TORRES,

Defendant.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Plaintiff American Airlines, Inc. ("AA"), by its attorneys, Adorno & Yoss LLP, as and

for its verified complaint against Wilfredo Torres ("defendant"), alleges as follows:

FIRST COUNT

(Harassment)

1. AA is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its

principal place of business at 4333 Amon Carter Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas.

2. Defendant is, upon information and belief, a citizen of the State of New York

residing at XXX XXXXXXX, New York. New York 10016.

3. Plaintiff is the largest scheduled passenger airline in the world. AA provides

scheduled jet service to destinations throughout North America, the Caribbean, Latin America,

Europe, and the Pacific.

4. Since at least June 2006, defendant has knowingly engaged, and is continuing to

engage, in a campaign of unlawful harassment against AA, and in particular, the Office of its

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

5. Defendant's campaign of harassment has consisted of his making hundreds of

telephone calls to the office of Gerard Arpey ("Mr. Arpey"), AA's Chairman and Chief

Executive Officer. Defendant made these telephone calls to complain about an experience he

had with AA in New York, and insisted upon speaking with Mr. Arpey, even after being

expressly told that Mr. Arpey was not the person at AA who would address defendant's

complaint. Despite being told that defendant should contact customer relations or security at

AA, defendant continued to flood the Office of the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer with

telephone calls.

6. On June19, 2006, defendant communicated by telephone and called Mr. Arpey's

office approximately 6 times.

7. On June 22, 2006, defendant called Mr. Arpey's office approximately 3 times.

8. On June 23, 2006, defendant called Mr, Arpey's office approximately 5 times.

9. On July 7, 2006, defendant called Mr. Arpey's office approximately 40 times.

10. On July 10, 2006, defendant called Mr. Arpey's office approximately 135 times.

11. On July 11, 2006, defendant called Mr. Arpey's office approximately 50 times.

12. On July 12, 2006, defendant called Mr. Arpey’s office approximately 30 times.

13. On July 13, 2006, defendant called Mr. Arpey's office approximately 115 times.

14. On July 14, 2006, defendant called Mr. Arpey's office approximately 110 times.

15. As a result of defendant’s campaign of harassing telephone calls to Mr. Arpey's

office, AA's Security Department placed a block on me telephone numbers that were previously

used by the defendant. The campaign of incessant telephone calls started again on July 26, 2006.

In a span of approximately thirty minutes on that day, the Office received more than two

hundred telephone calls - all originating from the same telephone number. This telephone

number was different than the previous numbers used by defendant, though it had the same area

code (646) as other telephone numbers that defendant used in the past. Defendant did not

identify himself in any of the calls on July 26. 2006. However, this most recent pattern is the

same used by defendant previously; that is, me caller hung up as soon as the telephone call was

answered in the Office.

16. Upon information and belief, defendant made the more than two hundred

telephone calls to Mr. Arpey's office on July 26, 2006.

17. Defendant's telephone calls to Mr. Arpey's office had no legitimate purpose but

instead were knowingly made and designed with the intent to harass, annoy, and alarm Mr.

Arpey and/or other AA employees who work in me Office of the Chairman and Chief Executive

Officer of AA.

18. As a direct and proximate result of defendant's actions, AA has sustained damage

and is entitled to injunctive relief and such monetary damages as shall be proven upon the trial of

this action.

SECOND COUNT

(Tortious Interference)

19. AA repeats and realleges paragraphs one through eighteen, as if set forth

completely herein.

20. Lu Eppes and Karaleen Eichorst are both Executive Assistants to Mr. Arpey.

21. Among Ms. Eppes' and Ms. Eichorst’s contractual responsibilities as Executive

Assistants are the following: receive incoming telephone calls that are made to Mr. Arpey

prepare correspondence for Mr. Arpey's signature; handle incoming mail; file documents; and

arrange and monitor Mr. Arpey's schedule, travel, and meetings.

22. Defendant's campaign of making harassing telephone calls to AA's Office of the

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer wrongfully impaired and interfered with the performance

of Ms. Eppes' and Ms. Eichorst’s contractual responsibilities as Mr. Arpey's Executive

Assistants.

23. Defendant knowingly and tortiously interfered with AA's Office of the Chairman

and Chief Executive Officer and its ability to carry out its business relations with others with

whom it deals.

24. In engaging in a campaign of harassing telephone calls, defendant acted with the

sole purpose of harming AA.

25. As a direct and proximate result of defendant's actions, AA has sustained damage

and is entitled to injunctive relief and such monetary damages as shall be proven upon the trial of

this action.

THIRD COUNT

(Injunctive Relief)

26. AA repeats and realleges paragraphs one through twenty-five, as if set forth

completely herein.

27. Based on defendant's campaign of harassment and tortuous interference with

business and contractual relations, AA is entitled to an order enjoining and restraining defendant

from contacting via telephone or other means, the Office of the Chairman and Chief Executive

Officer of American Airlines, Inc.

28. There is no adequate remedy at law to prevent defendant's wrongful conduct

while this litigation is pending.

29. There is a substantial likelihood that AA will prevail on the merits of this case.

30. There is a substantial likelihood that AA will continue to suffer irreparable injury

if the injunction is not granted and that the threatened injury to AA outweighs any potential

injury to defendant.

31. The public, interest win only be served by the issuance of a preliminary and

permanent injunction. Without the injunction, defendant will continue to injure the ongoing

Operations of AA's Office of the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

32. Immediate injunctive relief is therefore appropriate.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, American Airlines, Inc. respectfully requests that the Court issue an

Order:

A) Enjoining and restraining defendant Torres, during the pendency of this action

and permanently, from contacting via telephone or other means, the Office of the Chairman and

Chief Executive Officer of American Airlines, Inc.;

B) Compensating American Airlines, Inc. on the First and Second Causes of Action

for its actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial; and

C) Awarding American Airlines, Inc. punitive damages;

D) Awarding American Airlines, Inc. its attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and

E) Granting such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York ADORNO & YOSS LLP

July 27, 2006

Stcven Gerber

David H. Ganz

80 Broad Street, 32nd Floor

New York, New York 10004

(212) 809-5700

Attorneys for Plaintiff

American Airlines, Inc

The undersigned affirms the following to be true under penalty of perjury pursuant to Rule

2106 of the Civil Procedure Law and Rules.

That he is a partner in the law firm Adorno & Yoss LLP, attorneys for plaintiff American

Airlines, Inc. herein.

That he has read the foregoing document and knows the contents thereof, and that same is

true to the knowledge of your deponent, except as to the matters therein alleged upon information

and belief, and that as to those matters, he believes them to be true.

That the reason why this affirmation is being made by your deponent and not by the plaintiff

is that said corporation does not maintain an office with an officer having knowledge of the facts in

the county where your affirmant maintains his offices.

That the source of your deponent's information and the grounds for his belief as to all the

matters therein alleged upon information and belief are reports from and communications had with

said corporation.

Dated: New York, New York

July 27, 2006

David H. Ganz, Esquire