3/26/2024 1:03 PM

Velva L. Price
D-1-GN-24-001946 District Clerk
Travis County
D-1-GN-24-001946
CAUSE NO. _____________ Ruben Tamez

MAURICIO GARCIA, § IN DISTRICT COURT OF

Plaintiff §
§
VS. § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
455TH, DISTRICT COURT
FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC; §
HOLLYWOOD UNLOCKED, INC.; § ________ DISTRICT COURT
LOUDER WITH CROWDER, LLC; §
STEPHEN CROWDER; §
NEWSMAX MEDIA, INC.; §
OWEN SHROYER; §
TIMCAST MEDIA GROUP, INC.; §
TELEVISA UNIVISION, INC.; §
TODAY NEWS AFRICA, LLC; and §
SIMON ATEBA, §
Defendants §

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION

Plaintiff Mauricio Garcia files this original petition against Defendants and

alleges as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. In their haste to cash in on the eagerness of viewers and readers to learn

the identity of the May 6, 2023 mass shooter at the outlet mall in Allen, Texas, several

media organizations recklessly disregarded basic journalistic safeguards and

published the photo of an innocent man, branding him as a neo-Nazi murderer to his

local community and the nation at large.

2. This case implicates the ever-deepening dysfunction in American media.

As a cost-cutting measure, many of our legacy media organizations have dismantled

1
the institutional guardrails previously in place to prevent the publication of false

information. At the same time, a growing number of hyper-politicized alternative

media organizations are managing to attract significant audiences using a low-cost

business model that has no interest in institutional guardrails to begin with. The

result is a media structure that is failing from top to bottom. There is too little

investment in newsroom capacity, too much dependence on social media rumors, and

a growing financial incentive to rush publication before verifying facts.

3. The consequences for the public are dire, not merely in terms of a poorly

informed citizenry, but in the reputational and emotional damage caused to

individual citizens when accuracy is sacrificed in the pursuit of profit. This lawsuit

seeks to address that harm.

DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

4. Plaintiff intends to seek a customized discovery control plan under Level

3 of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.4.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Mauricio Garcia is an individual residing in Dallas County,

Texas.

6. Defendant Fox News Network, LLC is a Delaware corporation with its

principal place of business in New York.

7. Hollywood Unlocked, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal

place of business in California.

2
 8. Defendant Louder with Crowder, LLC is a Texas corporation with its

principal place of business in Collin County, Texas. Defendant Steven Crowder is an

individual residing in Denton County, Texas.

9. Defendant Newsmax Media, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its

principal place of business in Florida.

10. Defendant Owen Shroyer is an individual residing in Travis County,

Texas.

11. Defendant Timcast Media Group, Inc. is a West Virginia corporation with

its principal place of business in Maryland.

12. Defendant TelevisaUnivision, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its

principal place of business in Florida.

13. Defendant Today News Africa, LLC is a District of Columbia corporation

with its principal place of business in the District of Columbia. Defendant Simon Ateba

is an individual residing in the District of Columbia.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

14. The damages sought in this case exceed the minimum jurisdictional

limits of Travis County District Courts.

15. Venue is proper in Travis County, Texas, because libel lawsuits are

subject to a mandatory venue statute. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §15.017 (“A suit

for damages for libel … shall be brought and can only be maintained … in the county

in which any defendant resided at the time of filing … at the election of the plaintiff.”).

3
 FACTS

I. Media Organizations Falsely Accused the Plaintiff of Committing the Allen

Outlet Mall Shooting.

16. On the afternoon of May 6, 2023, an individual began shooting visitors

to the Allen Premium Outlets, a large outdoor mall in Allen, Texas. In a matter of

minutes, five adults and three children were killed, and seven other victims were

wounded.

17. The murderer, 33-year-old Mauricio Garcia, was a far-right extremist.

His extensive online writings catalogued his white supremacist and neo-Nazi

affinities. He committed the massacre while wearing a tactical vest embroidered with

a RWDS (Right Wing Death Squad) patch. His body was tattooed with Nazi symbols

including SS lightning bolts and a large swastika.

18. The tragedy immediately became the leading news story across the

nation and much of the world. On the day of the shooting, no details were released

about the shooter, but over the next three days, media organizations reported on his

identity based on the release of his name and date of birth by law enforcement.

19. During that process, several of those media organizations ignored

elementary journalistic precautions. As a result, from May 7th-9th, they accused the

wrong person -- the Plaintiff, 36-year-old Mauricio Garcia -- who had nothing to do

with the shooting. Those media organizations consist of the following:

4
 A. Fox News Network, LLC falsely identified Plaintiff.

20. Fox News Network, LLC operates the Fox News Channel, the Fox

Business Channel, Fox News Radio, and Fox News Digital, which it refers to

collectively as "Fox News Media.” Fox News is one of the largest and most profitable

media enterprises in the world.

21. Fox News Network, through Fox News Digital, reported on the Allen

Outlet Mall shooting.

22. An article published on the FoxNews.com website used an image of

innocent 36-year-old Plaintiff Mauricio Garcia to portray the gunman.

23. Fox News failed to exercise reasonable care in verifying the accuracy of

the photograph published to depict the mass murderer.

24. Fox News acted with reckless disregard for the truth and published the

photo while willfully ignoring elementary journalistic precautions.

25. Personal jurisdiction against Fox News is proper under Keeton v. Hustler

Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984). Fox News has a substantial circulation in the State

of Texas, as opposed to a circulation which could be characterized as random,

isolated, or fortuitous. Fox News has continuously and deliberately cultivated the

Texas market.

26. Alternatively, personal jurisdiction against Fox News is proper under

Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). Fox News aimed the story at Texas knowing that

the effects of the story would be felt there. Fox News’ defamatory publication had a

5
Texas subject matter (the Allen outlet mall shooting and alleged acts of the Plaintiff),

and it used Texas sources (including a Dallas County photo of the Plaintiff).

27. Plaintiff sent Fox News a demand for retraction pursuant to Sec. 73.055

of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code. Plaintiff’s demand gave notice of the

location, date, and nature of the false publication, along with an explanation of its

falsity. Plaintiff now seeks damages for libel based on that false publication.

28. Despite Plaintiff’s demand, Fox News Network, LLC refused to publish a

retraction within 30 days. Indeed, no retraction has ever been published. Fox

completely ignored Plaintiff and never responded. Pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.

Code 73.059, Plaintiff is entitled to recover exemplary damages from Fox News

Network, LLC without showing actual malice.

B. Hollywood Unlocked falsely identified Plaintiff.

29. Hollywood Unlocked is a multimedia news and entertainment platform

owned by Hollywood Unlocked, Inc. and founded by media entrepreneur Jason Lee.

Among other internet and media properties, the company owns and operates the

popular website HollywoodUnlocked.com.

30. HollywoodUnlocked.com reported on the Allen Outlet Mall shooting.

31. An article published on HollywoodUnlocked.com used an image of

innocent 36-year-old Plaintiff Mauricio Garcia to portray the gunman.

32. Hollywood Unlocked, Inc. failed to exercise reasonable care in verifying

the accuracy of the photograph published to depict the mass murderer.

6
 33. Hollywood Unlocked, Inc. acted with reckless disregard for the truth and

published the photo while willfully ignoring elementary journalistic precautions.

34. Personal jurisdiction against Hollywood Unlocked, Inc. is proper under

Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984). Hollywood Unlocked has a

substantial circulation in the State of Texas, as opposed to a circulation which could

be characterized as random, isolated, or fortuitous. Hollywood Unlocked, Inc. has

continuously and deliberately cultivated the Texas market.

35. Alternatively, personal jurisdiction against Hollywood Unlocked, Inc. is

proper under Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). Hollywood Unlocked, Inc. aimed

the story at Texas knowing that the effects of the story would be felt there. Hollywood

Unlocked, Inc.’s defamatory publication had a Texas subject matter (the Allen Outlet

Mall shooting and alleged acts of the Plaintiff), and it used Texas sources (including a

Dallas County photo of the Plaintiff).

36. Plaintiff sent Hollywood Unlocked, Inc. a demand for retraction

pursuant to Sec. 73.055 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code. Plaintiff’s

demand gave notice of the location, date, and nature of the false publication, along

with an explanation of its falsity. Plaintiff now seeks damages for libel based on

Hollywood Unlocked, Inc.’s false publication.

37. Despite Plaintiff’s demand, Hollywood Unlocked, Inc. refused to publish

a retraction within 30 days. Furthermore, Hollywood Unlocked initially assured

Plaintiff that the publication had been deleted, but that assurance was false. Pursuant

7
to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 73.059, Plaintiff is entitled to recover exemplary

damages from Hollywood Unlocked, Inc. without showing actual malice.

C. Louder with Crowder, LLC and Stephen Crowder falsely identified

the Plaintiff.

38. Steven Crowder is an extremist rightwing media figure and the founder

of Louder with Crowder, LLC, a media company that publishes videos and articles on

news and politics, including Crowder’s daily show, Louder with Crowder, as well as

the website LouderWithCrowder.com.

39. Stephen Crowder has personal editorial control over the content aired

on his show.

40. Louder with Crowder, LLC and Stephen Crowder reported on the Allen

outlet mall shooting.

41. When covering the shooting on his show Louder with Crowder, Crowder

displayed a graphic with a photograph of the Plaintiff and identified him as the

shooter.

42. Moreover, Louder with Crowder’s continuing coverage of the shooting

was intended to cast doubt on the information relating to the actual shooter, thereby

increasing the damage to the Plaintiff.

43. When faced with increasing evidence that his reckless misidentification

was indeed incorrect, Steven Crowder recorded another episode of Louder with

Crowder in which he discussed the OK.RU profile which had been discovered and

disclosed publicly, resulting in widespread reporting in the media. That social media

8
profile, which remained viewable by anyone, contained verifiable photos of the

shooter which matched the hand tattoo on the shooter’s body at the scene. The social

media profile also contained extensive incontrovertible proof that it was operated by

the shooter. Crowder’s review of those photos would have immediately revealed that

he had misidentified the shooter.

44. Nonetheless, an article was then published to LouderWithCrowder.com

displaying a photograph of Plaintiff Mauricio Garcia as the shooter.

45. In the body of the article, the Louder with Crowder author stated that the

website tends not “to share photos of killers, but since the media refuses to, this is the

new face of white supremacy.” Immediately below this statement, Plaintiff’s

photograph appeared.

46. Despite the claim that “the media refuse[d]” to share images of the killer,

actual photos of the shooter had been published by other media organizations.

47. Both Stephen Crowder and the Louder with Crowder article discussed --

but dismissed -- reporting on the social media profile where verifiable photos of the

shooter could be found, including photos matching the hand tattoo seen on the

shooter’s body.

48. In addition to publishing the Plaintiff’s image in the article, visitors to

the home page of Louder with Crowder’s website were shown the same photograph

when scrolling through the website headlines, even without clicking on the article

9
itself. Visitors to the Louder with Crowder website were also shown the photograph

of the Plaintiff in the recommendation panel displayed on other stories.

49. Louder with Crowder, LLC and Stephen Crowder failed to exercise

reasonable care in verifying the accuracy of the photograph they repeatedly

published to depict a mass murderer.

50. Louder with Crowder, LLC and Stephen Crowder acted with reckless

disregard for the truth and published the photo while willfully ignoring elementary

journalistic precautions.

51. Personal jurisdiction against Louder with Crowder, LLC and Stephen

Crowder is proper because both are residents of Texas.

52. Plaintiff sent Louder with Crowder, LLC, and Stephen Crowder a demand

for retraction pursuant to Sec. 73.055 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code.

Plaintiff’s demand gave notice of the location, date, and nature of the false

publications, along with an explanation of their falsity. Plaintiff now seeks damages

for libel based on Louder with Crowder, LLC, and Stephen Crowder’s false

publications.

53. Despite Plaintiff’s demand, Louder with Crowder, LLC and Stephen

Crowder refused to publish a retraction within 30 days. Indeed, despite

acknowledging the Plaintiff’s demand, no retraction has ever been published.

Pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 73.059, Plaintiff is entitled to recover

10
exemplary damages from Louder with Crowder, LLC, and Stephen Crowder without

showing actual malice.

D. Newsmax Media, Inc. falsely identified Plaintiff.

54. Newsmax is a rightwing cable news and digital media brand owned and

operated by Newsmax Media, Inc.

55. Newsmax reported on the Allen Outlet Mall shooting.

56. Newsmax produces The Balance with Eric Bolling and Greg Kelly Reports.

Both shows contained discussions about the identity of the Allen outlet mall shooter

featuring a photograph of Plaintiff Mauricio Garcia.

57. The photo was first prominently displayed on The Balance with Eric

Bolling during a panel discussion.

58. The photo was shown again as the featured graphic throughout a

commentary segment on Greg Kelly Reports.

59. In his commentary, Mr. Kelly also falsely alleged that the Plaintiff was a

member of the “Puro Tango Blast” prison gang.

60. Newsmax failed to exercise reasonable care in verifying the accuracy of

the photograph it repeatedly published to depict a mass murderer and the accuracy

of its allegations.

61. Newsmax acted with reckless disregard for the truth and published its

allegations and the photo while willfully ignoring elementary journalistic

precautions.

11
 62. Personal jurisdiction against Newsmax is proper under Keeton v. Hustler

Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984). Newsmax has a substantial circulation in the State

of Texas, as opposed to a circulation which could be characterized as random,

isolated, or fortuitous. Newsmax has continuously and deliberately cultivated the

Texas market.

63. Alternatively, personal jurisdiction against Newsmax is proper under

Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). Newsmax aimed its coverage at Texas knowing

that the effects of the story would be felt there. Newsmax’s defamatory publication

had a Texas subject matter (the Allen outlet mall shooting and alleged acts of the

Plaintiff), and it used Texas sources (including a Dallas County photo of the Plaintiff).

64. Due to widespread condemnation of the inflammatory segment on Greg

Kelly Reports, Newsmax issued a retraction prior to receiving a demand from Plaintiff.

Nonetheless, Plaintiff sent a demand letter to Newsmax giving notice of the location,

date, and nature of the false publications, along with an explanation of their falsity.

Plaintiff now seeks damages for libel based on those false publications on The Balance

with Eric Bolling and Greg Kelly Reports.

E. Owen Shroyer falsely identified Plaintiff.

65. Owen Shroyer is an extremist rightwing media personality and host of

The War Room with Owen Shroyer, his daily news program.

66. Owen Shroyer has personal editorial control over the content aired on

his daily show.

12
 67. Shroyer is well known for his multiple pleas to federal criminal charges

relating to his repeated acts of disorderly conduct on U.S. Capitol Grounds, both in

2019 when attempting to impede the House Judiciary Committee, and again for

breaching restricted areas while leading a crowd of rioters on January 6, 2021.

Speaking through a bullhorn to the rioters on January 6, Shroyer yelled to the crowd:

Now the Democrats are posing as communists, but we

know what they really are: they’re just tyrants. And so
today, on January 6, we declare death to tyranny! Death to
tyrants! Death to tyrants! Death to tyrants! 1

68. Shroyer is also well known for his role in the 2022 defamation trial in

Heslin v. Jones, which centered on his false statements about a Sandy Hook parent.

69. One of Shroyer’s co-workers, Kit Daniels, was sued in a nearly identical

defamation lawsuit brought by undersigned counsel due to Daniels falsely identifying

an innocent man as the Parkland High School mass shooter. 2

70. Shroyer discussed the Allen Outlet Mall shooting on his show, The War

Room with Owen Shroyer. During his discussion, Shroyer showed his audience a tweet

printed out from an anonymous Twitter account called “KanekoaTheGreat.” 3 The

tweet featured a photograph of innocent Plaintiff Mauricio Garcia.

1 Statement of Offense sworn by Owen Shroyer. Available at:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.234903/gov.uscourts.dcd.234903.39.0.pdf
2 Fontaine v. Free Speech Systems, LLC, et. al., D-1-GN-18-001605, 459th District Court, Travis County, Texas.
3 This anonymous Twitter user also operates a Substack account. In April 2023, the Anti-Defamation League

noted that this Substack, “Kanekoa News,” posts articles “pushing repeatedly debunked conspiracy theories
and false claims about election fraud such as ballot harvesting, drop box stuffing, big tech interference and
more. In one article, Kanekoa states that Biden’s presidential win in 2020 was the result of ‘an organized
criminal ballot trafficking ring that took advantage of Zuckerberg’s drop boxes.’”
See https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/antisemitism-false-information-and-hate-speech-find-home-
substack-0

13
 71. Shroyer stated that the media was reporting that law enforcement was

“examining a social profile…found on the social media site OK.RU” which “matche[d]

the gunman’s birthday and refers to a motel where he was staying before the

shooting.” Mr. Shroyer stated that the media was reporting that the “profile also

include[d] language praising Hitler, with references to neo-Nazi websites like the

Daily Stormer.”

72. While showing innocent Plaintiff Mauricio Garcia’s photograph, Shroyer

stated: “They’re the ones who call a Hispanic man a white supremacist and a neo-Nazi.

His name was Mauricio Garcia, your neo-Nazi [laugh] white supremacist. But we

know now, this is the Leftist logic, we know now that it actually has nothing to do with

skin color. It has everything to do with politics. Don’t you know?”

73. Shroyer failed to exercise reasonable care in verifying the accuracy of

the photograph published to depict a mass murderer.

74. Shroyer acted with reckless disregard for the truth and published the

photo while willfully ignoring elementary journalistic precautions.

75. Personal jurisdiction against Owen Shroyer is proper because he is a

resident of Texas.

76. Plaintiff sent Owen Shroyer a demand for retraction pursuant to Sec.

73.055 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code. Plaintiff’s demand gave notice of

the location, date, and nature of the false publication, along with an explanation of its

falsity. Plaintiff now seeks damages for libel based on that false publication.

14
 77. Despite Plaintiff’s demand, Owen Shroyer refused to publish a retraction

within 30 days. Indeed, no retraction has ever been published. Shroyer completely

ignored Plaintiff’s demand. Pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 73.059, Plaintiff

is entitled to recover exemplary damages from Owen Shroyer without showing actual

malice.

F. Timcast Media Group, Inc. falsely identified Plaintiff.

78. Timcast Media Group, Inc. is an internet media company that publishes

videos and articles on news and politics, including podcaster Tim Pool’s daily show,

Timcast IRL, as well as the Timcast.com website.

79. Timcast Media Group, Inc. reported on the Allen Outlet Mall shooting.

80. Multiple articles published on the Timcast.com website featured a

photograph of innocent Plaintiff Mauricio Garcia used to portray the gunman.

81. Further compounding the defamation is the fact that employees of

Timcast Media Group, including Tim Pool, denied the reality of the Allen Outlet Mall

shooting, telling their audience that the event was a psychological operation

(“psyop”).

82. For instance, when discussing the real shooter’s “Russian social media

alongside photos of Nazis, guns, and ammunition” on Timcast IRL, Tim Pool claimed,

“You see, here’s where we get into the psyop. No one knows if this Russian social

media profile is actually – actually belongs to this guy … Now the photos that are

coming out … They don’t show his face.”

15
 83. In reality, the OK.RU profile that Pool referenced did contain

photographs of the actual shooter’s face, and it also contained photos matching a

tattoo seen in photographs taken at the crime scene of the shooter’s body, along with

other verifiable evidence.

84. Pool also claimed on Timcast IRL that he did not want to show the social

media photos “considering the sensitive nature of these things,” and thus did not

show any of the photos of the real shooter. Pool also chided Bellingcat researcher Aric

Toler, who published the real shooter’s social media profile and photos, claiming that

Toler “didn’t verify it.” Yet at the time Pool made these comments, Timcast Media

Group, Inc. had already published a completely different, unverified, and incorrect

photo of the Plaintiff on its website.

85. In addition, Timcast news reporter Josie Glabach, known on Twitter as

“The Redheaded libertarian,” posted several tweets declaring that the event was a

“psy-op” and that Aric Toler was “a CIA operative.” Each of the tweets garnered an

enthusiastic reply from Elon Musk. In the following days, Musk repeatedly claimed

the event was a psy-op and that mainstream reporting on the shooter’s identity was

a lie.

86. Timcast Media Group also published an episode of Timcast IRL in which

the thumbnail image for the video used a photograph of the Plaintiff. This image was

viewable not only to YouTube users who actually clicked on the video, but to any user

16
who was served the video on their feeds or in a recommendation sidebar. The video

and thumbnail also appeared in an article on Timcast.com.

87. In the following days, Pool continued to cast doubt on the event and tell

his audience that the event was a psyop or staged government conspiracy. These

allegations amplified the damage to Mr. Garcia.

88. For example, on May 10th, Tim Pool continued to promote the idea the

shooting was a government conspiracy. On Twitter, Pool was critical of the idea that

the shooter had posted images on social media with personal details, such as a plane

ticket, a speeding ticket, and an ID card. In response, Pool provided a YouTube link to

the “orgy of evidence” scene from the 2002 Spielberg thriller Minority Report,

implying that the materials were staged. As a result of Pool’s denial of the OK.RU

profile, members of his audience who happened to encounter legitimate images of the

shooter from mainstream sources were less likely to believe their authenticity.

89. Timcast Media Group, Inc. failed to exercise reasonable care in verifying

the accuracy of the photograph it repeatedly published to depict a mass murderer.

90. Timcast Media Group, Inc. acted with reckless disregard for the truth

and published the photo while willfully ignoring elementary journalistic precautions.

91. Personal jurisdiction against Timcast Media Group, Inc. is proper under

Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984). Timcast IRL and Timcast.com

both have a substantial circulation in the State of Texas, as opposed to a circulation

17
which could be characterized as random, isolated, or fortuitous. Timcast Media

Group, Inc. has continuously and deliberately cultivated the Texas market.

92. Alternatively, personal jurisdiction against Timcast Media Group, Inc. is

proper under Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). Timcast Media Group, Inc. aimed

its coverage at Texas knowing that the effects of its coverage would be felt there.

Timcast Media Group, Inc.’s defamatory publications had a Texas subject matter (the

Allen outlet mall shooting and alleged acts of the Plaintiff), and they used Texas

sources (including a Dallas County photo of the Plaintiff).

93. Plaintiff sent Timcast Media Group, Inc. a demand for retraction

pursuant to Sec. 73.055 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code. Plaintiff’s

demand gave notice of the location, date, and nature of the false publications, along

with an explanation of their falsity. Plaintiff now seeks damages for libel based on

those false publications.

94. Despite Plaintiff’s demand, Timcast Media Group, Inc. refused to publish

a retraction within 30 days. Indeed, despite acknowledging Plaintiff’s demand and

deleting the articles, no retraction has ever been published. Pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac.

& Rem. Code 73.059, Plaintiff is entitled to recover exemplary damages from Timcast

Media Group, Inc. without showing actual malice.

18
 G. TelevisaUnivision, Inc. falsely identified Plaintiff.

95. TelevisaUnivision, Inc. is a Spanish-language media company. In 2021,

Univision purchased Televisa for $4.8 billion, uniting their two massive media

properties.

96. TelevisiaUnivision, Inc. operates the Univision television network,

which frequently generates the highest Nielsen ratings of any over-the-air broadcast

television network in America, outperforming ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox. 4

97. Univision reported on the Allen Outlet Mall shooting.

98. During the evening news program Primer Impacto, Univision broadcast

the Plaintiff’s photograph as the Allen Outlet Mall shooter to an audience of millions.

99. Univision also falsely identified Plaintiff as the Allen Outlet Mall shooter

to millions of viewers on its evening news show Noticiero Univision.

100. Noticiero Univision is hosted by Jorge Ramos, who is arguably the most

trusted media figure in the world. During the segment, Ramos identified Plaintiff as

the shooter while Plaintiff’s image appeared behind Ramos as he gave commentary

on the story.

101. Plaintiff’s photograph was also used during the news program Linea de

Fuego, a Univision program that only appears on ViX, a fledgling Spanish-language

online streaming service. Unlike Noticiero Univision and Primer Impacto, which

regularly reach millions of views every night, Linea de Fuego does not have a large

4
https://corporate.televisaunivision.com/press/ratings/2022/01/28/univision-ranks-as-the-no-1-
broadcast-network-in-weeknight-primetime-outperforming-abc-cbs-nbc-fox-and-the-cw

19
audience. The episode was also posted on YouTube, but the number of views was in

the low thousands.

102. TelevisaUnivision failed to exercise reasonable care in verifying the

accuracy of the photograph it repeatedly published to depict the mass murderer.

103. TelevisaUnivision acted with reckless disregard for the truth and

published the photo while willfully ignoring elementary journalistic precautions.

104. Personal jurisdiction against TelevisaUnivision is proper under Keeton

v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984). TelevisaUnivision has a substantial

circulation in the State of Texas, as opposed to a circulation which could be

characterized as random, isolated, or fortuitous. TelevisaUnivision has continuously

and deliberately cultivated the Texas market.

105. Alternatively, personal jurisdiction against TelevisaUnivision is proper

under Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). TelevisaUnivision aimed the story at Texas

knowing that the effects of the story would be felt there. TelevisaUnivision’s

defamatory publications had a Texas subject matter (the Allen outlet mall shooting

and alleged acts of the Plaintiff), and they used Texas sources (including a Dallas

County photo of the Plaintiff).

106. Plaintiff’s mother was informed by her neighbor that Plaintiff’s image

had been broadcast on Univision. That evening, Plaintiff’s mother wrote a private

social media message to Andrea Rega, a 20+ year Univision journalist and anchor

20
based in Dallas, informing Ms. Rega of her family’s emotional distress and her son’s

intense fear and shame due to his misidentification. Plaintiff’s mother wrote:

Hola Senora Andrea, mi nombre es [REDACTED] y desde el

domingo e estado muy mal casi estoy muerta en vida
debido a que la massacre de allen marco mi vida por que la
foto del tirador que pusieron naionalmente y
mundialmente es la de mi hijo Mauricio Garcia, pero sucede
que no fue el tirador su unico pecado fue llamarse Igual
Mauricio Garcia pero no mi hijo no es la foto que corre
internacionalmente han Echo un gravisimo error han
destrozado mi vida y la de mi familia, el abuelito de
Mauricio mi hijo por poce se muere de susto!!! Le voy a
mandar la foto que es mi hijo e recibido amenazas de
muerte y odio!!! Gracias senora Andrea.

(Translation: Hello Mrs. Andrea, my name is [REDACTED]

and since Sunday I have been in a very bad state. I am
almost dead in life because the Allen massacre marked my
life because the photo of the shooter that was posted
nationally and worldwide is that of my son Mauricio Garcia,
but it happens that it was not the shooter, his only sin was
to be called the same Mauricio Garcia, but not my son, he is
not the photo that runs internationally. They have made a
very serious mistake, they have destroyed my life and that
of my family, Mauricio's grandfather, my son was scared to
death!!! I am going to send you the photo that is my son and
I have received death threats and hatred!!! Thank you Mrs.
Andrea.)

107. Plaintiff’s mother then sent the photo of her son, and stated, “Este es mi

hijo Mauricio Garcia, que su unico pecado fue llamarse igual. Que el tirador, quiero

estar incognita por mi seguridad por las amenazas a mi familia!!!” (Translation: This

is my son Mauricio Garcia, whose only sin was to have the same name as the shooter,

I want to be unknown for my safety because of the threats to my family!!!).

21
 108. In response, Ms. Rega stated, “Siento mucho lo que les esta pasando.

Podria por favor enviarme su numerous para llamarla? (Translation: I am very sorry

for what is happening to you. Could you please send me your number so I can call

you?).

109. Plaintiff’s mother provided her phone number. Ms. Rega then

responded, “Pase su caso inmediatamente a la gerencia. Le llamamos. De nuevo,

siento mucho todo esto. (Translation: Turning your case over to management

immediately. We will call you. Again, I'm so sorry about all of this.”).

110. Plaintiff’s mother never heard any further contact from Univision.

111. Plaintiff later decided to seek the advice of an attorney, who discovered

a YouTube clip of the Línea de Fuego episode, which had appeared on the ViX

streaming platform.

112. Plaintiff then sent TelevisaUnivision a written demand noting that

TelevisaUnivision had defamed him in the episode of Línea de Fuego. Plaintiff’s

demand gave notice of the location, date, and nature of the false publication, along

with an explanation of its falsity.

113. Plaintiff also demanded that TelevisaUnivision identify any other

occasions which Univision publicized his photograph as the shooter.

114. Plaintiff also demanded that TelevisaUnivision retract and correct its

defamatory actions against Plaintiff as provided by Sec. 73.055 of the Texas Civil

Practice & Remedies Code.

22
 115. In response, TelevisaUnivision removed the Línea de Fuego episode

from YouTube, and the hosts of Línea de Fuego read a correction on their ViX

streaming show.

116. However, TelevisaUnivision assured the Plaintiff that it had located no

other uses of his image by TelevisaUnivision.

117. After TelevisaUnivision failed to disclose its repeated defamation of the

Plaintiff to millions of people on its primetime broadcast news shows,

TelevisaUnivision then discouraged Plaintiff from initiating any lawsuit based on the

low-audience streaming-only show Línea de Fuego.

118. Plaintiff’s mother and her neighbor were confused. The neighbor didn’t

use the ViX streaming service. She told Mauricio’s mother that she had seen his

photograph on TV during Univision primetime.

119. Unlike internet-based programing, past episodes of over-the-air

broadcast television are not always easy for the public to locate. However, Plaintiff’s

attorneys engaged an investigator with a private news monitoring service. After

much effort, that investigator discovered the episode of the news program Noticiero

Univision featuring Jorge Ramos in which Ramos used Plaintiff’s photograph to

portray the shooter.

120. After being confronted with this discovery, TelevisaUnivision also

admitted that it used Plaintiff’s image as the shooter in an episode of its primetime

23
news show Primer Impacto. Plaintiff now seeks damages for libel based on the false

publications on Primer Impacto, Noticiero Univision, and Línea de Fuego.

121. TelevisiaUnivision, Inc. never published a retraction for its broadcasts

on Primer Impacto or Noticiero Univision. Pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code

73.059, Plaintiff is entitled to recover exemplary damages from TelevisaUnivision,

Inc. for these broadcasts without showing actual malice.

H. Simon Ateba and Today News Africa, LLC falsely identified Plaintiff.

122. Today News Africa is an online news publisher which creates videos and

articles on U.S. and international affairs. Today News Africa is operated by Today

News Africa, LLC, which is owned by Simon Ateba.

123. Simon Ateba also acts as reporter for Today News Africa. He is chiefly

known for his pugnacious and bizarre confrontations with White House press officials

and fellow reporters while attending White House press events.

124. Today News Africa, in two articles written by Simon Ateba, covered the

Allen Outlet Mall shooting and repeatedly featured a photograph of the Plaintiff,

identifying him as the gunman. Ateba also used Plaintiff’s image in tweets promoting

these articles on Twitter.com.

125. Simon Ateba and Today News Africa, LLC failed to exercise reasonable

care in verifying the accuracy of the photograph used in the article to depict the mass

murderer.

24
 126. Simon Ateba and Today News Africa, LLC acted with reckless disregard

for the truth and published the photo while willfully ignoring elementary journalistic

precautions.

127. Personal jurisdiction against Simon Ateba and Today News Africa, LLC

is proper under Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984). Today News

Africa has a substantial circulation in the State of Texas, as opposed to a circulation

which could be characterized as random, isolated, or fortuitous. Simon Ateba and

Today News Africa, LLC have continuously and deliberately cultivated the Texas

market.

128. Alternatively, personal jurisdiction against Simon Ateba and Today

News Africa, LLC is proper under Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). Simon Ateba

and Today News Africa, LLC aimed the story at Texas knowing that the effects of the

story would be felt there. Simon Ateba and Today News Africa, LLC’s defamatory

publications had a Texas subject matter (the Allen outlet mall shooting and alleged

acts of the Plaintiff), and they used Texas sources (including a Dallas County photo of

the Plaintiff).

129. Plaintiff sent Simon Ateba and Today News Africa, LLC a demand for

retraction pursuant to Sec. 73.055 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code.

Plaintiff’s demand gave notice of the date and nature of the false publications, along

with an explanation of their falsity. Plaintiff now seeks damages for libel based on

those false publications.

25
 130. Despite Plaintiff’s demand, Simon Ateba and Today News Africa, LLC

refused to publish a retraction within 30 days. Indeed, no retraction has ever been

published. Furthermore, Today News Africa initially assured Plaintiff that a

correction had been made, but that assurance was false. Pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. &

Rem. Code 73.059, Plaintiff is entitled to recover exemplary damages from Simon

Ateba and Today News Africa, LLC without showing actual malice.

CAUSE OF ACTION

I. Libel Per Se or Per Quod against all Defendants.

131. All previous allegations are incorporated by reference.

132. Plaintiff is a private individual and is neither a public official nor a public

figure for any purpose.

133. The publications by Defendants featuring Plaintiff’s image were false,

both in their particular facts and in the main point, essence, or gist in the context in

which they were made.

134. The publications by Defendants falsely used Plaintiff’s image to portray

him as the perpetrator of the Allen Outlet Mall shooting.

135. Defendants’ defamatory publications constitute defamation per se, as

they implicated the Plaintiff in heinous criminal conduct, and in the case of Newsmax,

prison gang affiliation.

26
 136. Alternatively, Defendants’ defamatory publications constitute

defamation per quod as they otherwise harmed Plaintiff’s reputation and subjected

Plaintiff to public contempt, disgrace, ridicule, or attack.

137. Defendants acted with negligence. Defendants failed to reasonably

investigate and failed to act as a reasonably prudent member of the media would have

acted.

138. Defendants further acted with actual malice. Defendants’ defamatory

statements were made with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the

statements, or they were made with knowledge of their falsity.

139. Each defendant publicly disseminated their defamatory publications to

an enormous audience causing significant harm to the Plaintiff.

DAMAGES

140. Defendants’ defamatory publications have and will continue to cause

harm to Plaintiff. Due to Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to

suffer substantial damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

141. Plaintiff has suffered general and special damages, including a severe

degree of mental stress, anguish, fear, personal embarrassment, and psychological

harm which has disrupted his daily affairs, both up to the present and into the future.

142. Plaintiff has also suffered damage to his reputation and image, both up

to the present and into the future.

27
 143. Each of Defendants’ publications was a substantial factor in the damages

suffered by Plaintiff.

144. Because Defendants’ conduct amounts to defamation per se, Plaintiff is

entitled to presumed damages.

145. Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of nominal damages and a judgment

clearing his name.

146. Plaintiff is also entitled to exemplary damages because the Defendants

acted with malice, or alternatively, failed to provide a retraction within 30 days of

Plaintiff’s demand and acted with negligence.

147. Plaintiff is also entitled to pre-judgment interest, post-judgment

interest, and costs of court.

148. Pursuant to Rule 47 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff is

seeking relief that exceeds $1,000,000.

JURY DEMAND

149. Plaintiff demands a jury trial and tenders the fee with this petition.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff Mauricio Garcia asks that the

Court issue citation for each Defendant to appear and answer, and that he be awarded

all the damages set forth above, and to grant whatever further relief to which he is

justly entitled.

28