MINCEY FITZPATRICK ROSS, LLC COUNSELFiled

FOR and Attested by the

RILEY H. ROSS III (PA I.D. NO. 204676) PLAINTIFFS
Office of Judicial Records
KEVIN V. MINCEY (PA I.D. NO. 90201) 09 SEP 2021 11:49 pm
ONE LIBERTY PLACE M. RUSSO
1650 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3600
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
(215) 587-0006
riley@minceyfitzross.com
kevin@minceyfitzross.com

RICKIA YOUNG and R.Y. (a minor) :

1231-33 Cambridge Court :
Philadelphia, PA 19123 : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiffs :
:
v. : JANUARY TERM, 2021
: No. 00602
:
NATIONAL FRATERNAL ORDER :
OF POLICE :
701 Marriott Drive :
Nashville, TN 37214 :
:
Defendant. :

COMPLAINT

Case ID: 210100602

 NOTICE TO DEFEND
NOTICE
You have been sued in court. If you wish to
defend against the claims set forth in the
following pages, you must take action within
twenty (20) days after this complaint and
notice are served, by entering a written
appearance personally or by attorney and
filing in writing with the court your defenses
or objections to the claims set forth against
you. You are warned that if you fail to do so
the case may proceed without you and a
judgment may be entered against you by the
court without further notice for any money
claimed in the complaint of for any other
claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You
may lose money or property or other rights
important to you.
You should take this paper to your lawyer at
once. If you do not have a lawyer or cannot
afford one, go to or telephone the office set
forth below to find out where you can get legal
help.
Philadelphia Bar Association
Lawyer Referral
And Information Service
One Reading Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
(215) 238-6333 TTY (215) 451-6197
AVISO
Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si
usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas
expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted
tiene veinte (20) dias de plazo al partir de la
fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Hace
falta ascentar una comparencia escrita o en
persona o con un abogado y entregar a la corte
en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones
a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea
avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte
tomara medidas y puede continuar la demanda
en contra suya sin previo aviso o notificacion.
Ademas, la corte puede decider a favor del
demandante y requiere que usted cumpla con
todas las provisiones de esta demanda. Usted
puede perder dinero o sus propiedades u otros
derechos importantes para usted.
Lleve esta demanda a un abogado
immediatamente. Si no tiene abogado o si no
tiene el dinero suficiente de pagar tal servicio.
Vaya en persona o llame por telefono a la
oficina cuya direccion se encuentra escrita
abajo para averiguar donde se puede
conseguir asistencia legal.
Asociacion De Licenciados De Filadelfia
Servicio De Referencia E
Informacion Legal
One Reading Center
Filadelfia, Pennsylvania 19107
(215) 238-6333 TTY (215) 451-6197
2
Case ID: 210100602
 PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Rickia Young is a citizen of the United States and a resident of

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

2. Plaintiff R.Y. is a minor, a citizen of the United States and a resident of

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

3. Ms. Young is the mother and guardian of Plaintiff R.Y. and brings this lawsuit on

her behalf and on behalf of Plaintiff R.Y.

4. Defendant National Fraternal Order of Police (“NFOP”) is the world’s largest

organization of sworn law enforcement officers, having more than 350,000 members and more

than 2,000 lodges across the country. The NFOP’s National Headquarters is located at 701

Marriott Drive, Nashville, TN 37214.

5. The NFOP maintains a Government and Media Affairs Center that serves as the

public face of the NFOP and works to shape the social narrative around policing issues across the

country.

JURISDICTION

6. This Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas has original jurisdiction to hear

the matters complained of herein pursuant to 42 Pa. C. S. §931(a) which directs that the Courts

of Common Pleas shall have unlimited original jurisdiction of all actions and proceedings,

including all actions and proceedings heretofore cognizable by law or usage in the Courts of

Common Pleas.

VENUE

7. Venue is proper in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas pursuant to

231 Pa. Code §1006(a)(1) which directs that an action against an individual may be brought in

Case ID: 210100602

and only in a county in which the individual may be served or in which the cause of action arose

or where a transaction or occurrence took place out of which the cause of action arose or in any

other county authorized by law. In the instant action, the cause of action arose in Philadelphia

County.

FACTS
8. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as though set forth

fully herein.

9. In the spring of 2020, George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officer

Derek Chauvin. Chauvin was on duty at the time of the killing and the video recording became

“viral” leading to protests against police killings and brutality all over the world.

10. Philadelphia experienced multiple days of protests after the killing of Mr. Floyd

that ended with the Philadelphia police department exercising unprecedented force against

peaceful protesters and bystanders by indiscriminately spraying tear gas and firing rubber bullets

in residential neighborhoods.

11. During the summer of 2020, then President Donald Trump was in the midst of his

campaign to be re-elected in November of 2020.

12. During the campaign, in the aftermath of the days of protests following the killing

of Mr. Floyd, then President Trump and other Republican candidates sought to create the

impression that the city of Philadelphia, and other cities run by mayors who affiliate with the

Democratic Party, were in the midst of waging a war against police officers.

13. On September 2, 2020, former President Trump threatened to cut federal funding

to several “Democrat-led cities”, claiming that the leaders allow “anarchy, violence, and

destruction.”

4
Case ID: 210100602
 14. On September 4, 2020, NFOP President Patrick Yoes announced that the NFOP

was endorsing then President Trump in the upcoming 2020 Presidential election stating that Mr.

Trump “has made it crystal clear that he has our backs.”

Plaintiffs are Assaulted by Philadelphia Police Officers

15. On October 26, 2020, Walter Wallace, Jr., a 27-year-old African American man,

was shot and killed by Philadelphia police officers, in the West Philadelphia section of the city,

in front of his family and friends including his mother who was standing right next to Mr.

Wallace when he was killed.

16. The shooting was recorded by cellphone video and posted to social media

platforms, where it immediately went viral.

17. Within hours, protesters took to the streets of West Philadelphia to demand police

accountability for the shooting and the Philadelphia police responded en masse.

18. In the early morning hours of October 27, 2020, Rickia Young was in her North

Philadelphia home trying to get her 2-year-old son R.Y. to go to sleep when she received a phone

call from a close family friend that she helped raise and affectionately refers to as her “nephew”.

19. The 16-year-old stated that he was in West Philadelphia and asked Ms. Young to

pick him up and give him a ride home to North Philadelphia because he was afraid that the

protester and police interactions might get out of hand.

20. Ms. Young could not leave her son home alone, but she wanted to get her nephew

home safely, so she put R.Y. in his car seat in the back of the car and hoped that the car ride

would help put him to sleep.

5
Case ID: 210100602
 21. Sometime later, Ms. Young picked up her nephew near the corner of 53rd and

Spruce Streets in West Philadelphia. She then drove north on 53rd Street before instinctively

making a right turn on to Chestnut Street heading in the direction of her home.

22. Chestnut Street is a major, one-way road that runs west to east through

Philadelphia. The portion of Chestnut Street in West Philadelphia that Ms. Young took to get

home is a three-lane road that is heavily trafficked.

23. As Ms. Young followed other traffic down Chestnut Street heading towards 52nd

Street, she encountered protesters in the street and then a large number of police who appeared to

have blocked off Chestnut Street at 52nd Street.

24. Ms. Young saw cars in front of her begin to turn around on the one-way street and

did the same after hearing police shouting and seeing protesters running past her.

25. Ms. Young attempted to execute a U-turn but while turning around she had to

stop to avoid hitting the protesters who had suddenly started running past her car.

26. Suddenly and without warning, a pack of Philadelphia police officers wearing riot

gear and wielding batons descended on the car Ms. Young was driving, causing significant

damage to the body of the vehicle, and smashing multiple windows of the vehicle.

27. The officers then violently yanked Ms. Young and her nephew from the vehicle

without reasonable suspicion or probable cause to arrest them and physically beat them in the

street.

28. R.Y. was also pulled from the vehicle by Philadelphia police officers.

Defendant Posts an Intentional Lie on Social Media to Promote its Propaganda

29. An individual recorded the entire encounter on her cellphone from a nearby

rooftop.

6
Case ID: 210100602
 30. Photographers were also on the scene and captured photos of police pulling R.Y.

out of the vehicle and of a woman police officer holding Ms. Young’s son after he was taken

from the vehicle.

31. The Inquirer, Philadelphia’s largest newspaper carrier, initially published

photographs of Ms. Young’s son being pulled from the vehicle and being held by the woman

police officer but later removed them, saying it did so out of privacy concerns.

32. On or about Wednesday, October 27, 2020, Defendant NFOP copied the

photograph of the woman police officer holding Ms. Young’s son and posted it to their Twitter,

Facebook, and Instagram accounts with the following caption:

This child was lost during the violent riots in Philadelphia, wandering around
barefoot in an area that was experiencing complete lawlessness. The only thing
this Philadelphia Police Officer cared about in that moment was protecting this
child.
We are not your enemy. We are the Thin Blue Line. And WE ARE the only
thing standing between Order and Anarchy.
See Facebook post attached hereto as Exhibit A (emphasis in the original).
33. When posting this message to its various social media accounts, Defendant NFOP

knew that the statement was a lie and that the child in the picture was not “lost” or “wandering

around barefoot” but instead was ripped from his mother and her vehicle by Philadelphia police

officers after the officers smashed out all the windows in the vehicle.

34. Later in the day on October 27, 2020, the Press Secretary for the Trump

Administration issued a statement that “the riots in Philadelphia are the most recent consequence

of the Liberal Democrats’ war against the police.”

35. The NFOP post was placed on the social media accounts by Mark McDonald, the

legislative liaison for the NFOP’s Legislative Office with the expressed permission and approval

7
Case ID: 210100602
of NFOP employees vested with the authority to grant such permission and to make such

approvals.

36. At the time that Defendant NFOP approved posting the statement to its social

media accounts, no employee or agent of Defendant had spoken to anyone connected to the

Philadelphia Police Department to verify the validity of the statement.

37. At the time that Defendant NFOP approved posting the statement to its social

media accounts, Defendant NFOP failed to make any effort to verify the validity of the

statement.

38. Indeed, Defendant NFOP knew or should have known that the statement was false

based on the viral video showing the child being taken out of Ms. Young’s vehicle by the

Philadelphia police and/or the captions and posts that accompanied the picture of the woman

officer and Ms. Young’s child when it copied the photo to use in its own post.

39. Defendant NFOP intentionally and with malice portrayed Ms. Young’s son as a

neglected and abandoned child in order to promote its own political propaganda of the police

being the savior of the child specifically and “the only thing standing between Order and

Anarchy” generally.

40. Defendant NFOP intentionally and with malice portrayed the child’s mother and

the entire West Philadelphia community as heartless and uncaring by falsely stating that the child

was lost and wandering around barefoot during violent riots.

41. Defendant NFOP posted the false statement on its social media accounts

intentionally to give it publicity and have it read by and shared among its thousands of social

followers.

8
Case ID: 210100602
 42. The false statement was indeed read by and shared among thousands of Defendant

NFOP’s social media followers, with many followers expressing outrage at the parents of the

child and demanding that social services take the child away from his mother.

43. As a result of Defendant NFOP’s actions, Ms. Young suffers from and will

continue to suffer from embarrassment, anxiety, loss of reputation, depression, headaches, fear,

harassment, and nightmares.

44. As a result of Defendant NFOP’s actions, R.Y. will suffer from embarrassment,

harassment, anxiety, fear, and loss of reputation, as well as yet to be determined damages.

COUNT I
INVASION OF PRIVACY
(Plaintiffs v. Defendant)

45. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as though set forth

fully herein.

46. Defendant NFOP placed Plaintiff R.Y. in a false light by representing that he was

lost and wandering around barefoot during a violent riot when in fact he was violently taken out

of his mother’s vehicle by the police.

47. Defendant NFOP placed Plaintiff R.Y. in a false light by representing that he was

saved by the woman police officer when in fact he was violently taken out of his mother’s

vehicle by the police.

48. Defendant NFOP placed Plaintiff Rickia Young in a false light by representing

that her son was lost and wondering around barefoot during a violent riot, thus implying that the

child’s mother neglected and abandoned him when in fact the child was taken from Ms. Young’s

vehicle while she was being beaten by the police after they smashed all the windows of her

vehicle and violently yanked her from her car.

9
Case ID: 210100602
 49. Defendant NFOP gave publicity to their false statements by posting the same on

their Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram social media accounts.

50. Defendant NFOP knew of the falsity of its statements when the statements were

posted or posted the statements in reckless disregard of whether the statements were true or not

because they never spoke to anyone connected to the Philadelphia Police Department to

determine the validity of the statements.

51. As the result of Defendant NFOP’s actions, Plaintiffs have suffered and/or will

suffer from embarrassment, anxiety, loss of reputation, depression, headaches, fear, nightmares,

harassment, and other injuries that have yet to be determined.

COUNT II
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(Plaintiffs v. Defendant)

52. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as though set forth

fully herein.

53. Defendant intentionally, recklessly, willfully, and without legal justification, by

extreme and outrageous conduct caused severe emotional distress to Plaintiffs.

54. Specifically, and with the knowledge of the relationship of police to Black

Americans, and for the sole purpose of pushing their political agenda, Defendant, with malice,

cast the Plaintiffs in false light by misappropriating the image of R.Y. and implying that Ms.

Young is an unfit mother who was unaware of the location of her child in the midst of what

Defendant intentionally labelled as violent riots.

55. Defendant’s affirmative act of intentionally using the image and creating a wholly

false narrative of how R.Y. came to be in police custody and creating the environment where Ms.

Young would be viewed as an unfit parent was an intentional invasion of privacy.

10
Case ID: 210100602
 56. Defendant knew, or had reason to know, that Plaintiffs would suffer injury to their

personal reputation when they published this false narrative to thousands of people.

57. Defendant knowingly and intentionally weaponized the fears of thousands of

people in order to achieve political gain at the expense of Plaintiffs.

58. As the result of Defendant NFOP’s actions, Plaintiffs have suffered and/or will

suffer from embarrassment, anxiety, loss of reputation, depression, headaches, fear, nightmares,

harassment, and other injuries that have yet to be determined.

COUNT III
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, DIRECTION, OR CONTROL
(Plaintiffs v. Defendant)

59. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as though set forth

fully herein.

60. Defendant had a duty to use reasonable care in supervising, directing, and

controlling the work of its employees so as not to create an unreasonable risk of harming others.

61. Defendant failed in its duty by permitting and approving the posting of a lie to its

social media accounts without any regard to truth of the statement and without regard to the risk

of harm that the post would cause to the child that appeared in the post and to the child’s mother.

62. By its actions, Defendant negligently supervised, directed and controlled how

Mark McDonald and others performed the task of posting information to their social media

accounts.

63. Defendant’s negligence resulted in the post being read by and shared among

thousands of Defendant NFOP’s social media followers, with many followers expressing outrage

at the parents of the child and demanding that the government take action such as removing the

child away from his mother.

11
Case ID: 210100602
 64. As the result of Defendant NFOP’s actions, Plaintiffs have suffered and/or will

suffer from embarrassment, anxiety, loss of reputation, depression, headaches, fear, nightmares,

harassment, and other injuries that have yet to be determined.

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

65. The actions of Mark McDonald and any other NFOP employee that helped to post

the false statement were outrageous and occurred within the scope of employee(s’)’s duties.

66. Additionally, the actions of Mark McDonald and any other NFOP employee that

helped to post the false statement were committed with the intent to further Defendant NFOP’s

interests.

67. As such, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive damages against Defendant

NFOP.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to enter judgment in their favor

and against Defendants in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) for all

damages and losses incurred by, or to be incurred by the Plaintiffs as a result of Defendant’s

conduct, for punitive damages as a result of Defendant’s conduct, and for any and all reasonable

attorney’s fees and costs of litigation as may be allowed by law.

Respectfully submitted,

MINCEY FITZPATRICK ROSS, LLC

/s/ Riley H. Ross III

Riley H. Ross III, Esq.
Kevin V. Mincey, Esq.
Date: September 9, 2021 Counsel for Plaintiffs

12
Case ID: 210100602
 VERIFICATION

I, Riley H. Ross, Esquire, am the counsel for Plaintiffs in the herein matter and certify
that the statements set forth in the attached Civil Action Complaint are true and correct to the
best of my information, knowledge, and belief. I further understand that all statements set forth
herein are subject to the prohibitions set forth in 18 Pa. C.S.A 4904, relating to unsworn
falsification to authorities.

Dated: September 9, 2021

RILEY H. ROSS, ESQUIRE

Case ID: 210100602