UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`STATESVILLE DIVISION
`CASE NO. 5:20-CV-103
`
`DAVID LUTZ, on behalf of himself and
`all others similarly situated.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CASE FARMS, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`VERIFIED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
` (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)
`
`COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, David Lutz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and file this Class Action Complaint against the Defendant, Case Farms, LLC for violation of the
`
`federal Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, and federal Declaratory Judgment Act, as well as
`
`willful breach of contract, declaratory judgment, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, temporary
`
`restraining order and preliminary injunction, violation of Chapter 75 of the North Carolina General
`
`Statutes, tortious interference with Contract, and defamation. Plaintiff seeks compensatory
`
`damages, treble damages or punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and injunctive relief
`
`prohibiting Defendant’s continuing wrongful conduct.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, DAVID LUTZ, is an individual and citizen and resident of Lincoln
`
`County, North Carolina.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant, CASE FARMS, LLC, is a North Carolina limited liability corporation,
`
`with its principal place of business in Troutman, North Carolina, in Iredell County, North Carolina.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`Case 5:20-cv-00103 Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 1 of 34
`
`

`

`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff’s federal claims arise under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 7 U.S.C. §
`
`181, et seq. and federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2002.1 Accordingly, this
`
`Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, and 7 U.S.C. §§ 209.
`
`4.
`
`This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over pendant claims arising under North
`
`Carolina law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.
`
`5.
`
`This District is proper venue under 28 U.S.C. §1391 because all of the parties are
`
`residents and domiciled in this District and the events in this lawsuit, concerning Case Farm’s
`
`illegal contract with Plaintiff, and illegal termination of that contract, and Defendants’ defamation
`
`of Plaintiff, all occurred in this District as well.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Case is a large poultry dealer, slaughtering and shipping for
`
`consumption, millions of pounds of chicken each week.
`
`7.
`
`Case operates as what is known as an "integrator." It controls each and every aspect
`
`of raising chickens, slaughtering them, and selling their meat. Case's various chicken meat
`
`products come from broilers-chickens genetically altered to produce so much breast meat that their
`
`bones often cannot properly support their body-that are born in Case’s hatcheries, from eggs laid
`
`by Case’s hens, and which remain Case’s property throughout their entire lives. The broilers are
`
`grown on feed formulated and provided by Case, in conditions regulated by Case. Each bird is
`
`allotted less than one square foot of space in the broiler houses. Additionally, the broilers are
`
`treated by veterinarians hired by Case, according to Case’s standards and rules. They are
`
`slaughtered on the date Case selects, in Case’s plants, and where Case’s employees evaluate the
`
`
`1 Plaintiff acknowledges that the federal Declaratory Judgment Act is not an independent source of federal
`jurisdiction.
`
`
`
`
`2
`Case 5:20-cv-00103 Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 2 of 34
`
`

`

`birds to determine whether they are fit for human consumption. If so, they are sold based on Case’s
`
`pre-existing contracts with various purchasers.
`
`8.
`
`In this system, so-called farmers/independent contractors like the Plaintiff are
`
`known as "growers." They grow the broilers based upon contract terms dictated by Case. Growers,
`
`including Plaintiff, cannot negotiate the terms of these contracts, are told they “must” sign them
`
`there on the spot, without consulting legal counsel, and are not given copies of such contracts at
`
`the time of signing nor until years later if at all. Thus, these contracts are contracts of adhesion.
`
`9.
`
`Under these dictated contracts, the growers bear virtually all the risk. They are
`
`responsible for building and maintaining the facilities on their farms in which the broilers are cared
`
`for, relying on Case's false representations regarding its commitment to its growers and their future
`
`earnings. They are required by Case to take out massive loans, using documentation prepared by
`
`Case for the loan applications. Typically, these loans are guaranteed by the United States taxpayer,
`
`for which they are personally responsible. In return, Plaintiff are paid based on a "tournament
`
`system," in which all growers whose chickens are slaughtered within a given time period compete
`
`with one another.
`
`10.
`
`Case disguises its virtual control of the outcome of the tournament through
`
`calculating the ranking of each grower to the ten-thousandth of a percent by averaging the so-
`
`called efficiency of a grower's production in the tournament instead of providing the growers with
`
`the outcome of each house even though Case has this information available. The top producing
`
`growers - as solely determined by Case - are paid a premium over and above a so - called "base
`
`price," and the lower ranked growers are subjected to offsetting discounts or deductions below the
`
`"base price." This is "robbing Peter to pay Paul".
`
`
`
`
`3
`Case 5:20-cv-00103 Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 3 of 34
`
`

`

`11.
`
`This tournament system ensures that Case's costs are consistent, but the growers
`
`can neither predict nor control their pay. Indeed, Case so dominates the growers that the growers
`
`are in effect "maintenance workers" or "sharecroppers" for Case. Growers, like Plaintiff, take out
`
`millions of dollars in loans to build their farms to Case’s specifications, and then have no way to
`
`repay such loans other than to do exactly as Case says, without ever voicing objection, or risk
`
`financial ruin and bankruptcy, as happened to Plaintiff.
`
`12.
`
`Case controls all of the aspects of genetics, nutrition, health and virtually all aspects
`
`of the environment in the grow-out process. In all probability, the growers may influence two
`
`percent 2% of these aspects in the grow-out process. Case literally controls its broiler production
`
`process from the egg to the plate. Through the illegal contracts of adhesion that it imposes on
`
`growers, Case controls the following aspects of the grow-out process, all of which directly impact
`
`the weight of the chickens at the end of the grow-out process, and thereby the amount of
`
`remuneration the grower receives from Case.
`
`a. Case unilaterally controls the drafting, language and terms of the poultry
`growing agreement.
`
`b. Case controls the type and condition of the houses required on a grower's
`farm.
`
`c. Case controls the contractors who are permitted to construct houses on a
`grower’s farm.
`
`d. Case controls the type and condition of the equipment required on a
`grower's farm.
`
`e. Case controls whether or not upgrades (improvements) are required on a
`grower's farm.
`
`f. Case controls the condition of the grower's farm adjacent to the poultry
`houses.
`
`g. Case controls the required maintenance of the land around the poultry
`houses.
`
`
`
`
`4
`Case 5:20-cv-00103 Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 4 of 34
`
`

`

`h. Case controls the type and kind of animals allowed on a grower's farm.
`
`i. Case controls the type of pest control allowed on a grower's farm.
`
`j. Case controls the genetics of the birds and the sex of birds delivered to
`growers' farms.
`
`k. Case owns and/or controls the pullets that are used to produce laying hens.
`
`l. Case owns the laying hens that produce the broiler eggs hatched by the
`laying hens.
`
`m. Case owns the eggs that are hatched by the laying hens.
`
`n. Case owns and controls the hatchery where the eggs are hatched.
`
`o. Case owns the broiler chicks that are hatched.
`
`p. Case controls the medication for the eggs and birds and the administration
`of the medication.
`
`q. Case controls the type of birds that each grower is given.
`
`r. Case controls the health and condition of the birds delivered to a grower.
`
`s. Case formulates and owns the feed provided to growers and its nutritional
`value.
`
`t. Case controls the additives included in the feed.
`
`u. Case controls the type of feed delivered to a particular grower and timing
`of changes to the feed ration for that grower's chickens.
`
`v. Case controls if a grower gets reclaimed (old) feed.
`
`w. Case determines when the birds will be delivered to a grower.
`
`x. Case controls whether a grower receives veterinary services.
`
`y. Case controls when veterinary services are provided on the grower's farm.
`
`z. Case controls when and which birds must be killed (culled) by a grower.
`
`aa. Case controls the service technician that oversees each grower's farm.
`
`bb. Case controls the environment the birds are grown in.
`
`cc. Case controls the temperature of the poultry houses the birds are grown in.
`
`
`
`
`5
`Case 5:20-cv-00103 Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 5 of 34
`
`

`

`dd. Case controls the airflow of the poultry houses the birds are grown in.
`
`ee. Case controls the lighting of the poultry houses the birds are grown in.
`
`ff. Case controls when the birds will be picked up for processing.
`
`gg. Case controls the "catch crew" which picks up the birds for processing.
`
`hh. Case controls the transporting of the birds to the processing plant.
`
`ii. Case controls the weighing of the birds.
`
`jj. Case controls the amount of time between catching the birds and weighing
`the birds.
`
`kk. Case controls the amount of time between weighing the birds and processing
`the birds.
`
`ll. Case even controls the disposal of the excrement of its birds.
`
`mm.
`Case controls the condition and environment of the farm and poultry
`houses before new flocks will be delivered to the grower's farm.
`
`nn. Case controls how long growers are held out between flocks.
`
`oo. Case controls how many flocks a grower receives.
`
`pp. Case controls the tournament system and income of the growers.
`
`qq. Case controls recording of factors (weight, etc.) that determine a grower's
`income, without a grower having proper means of verifying the numbers
`alleged by Case.
`
`rr. Case controls whether a grower's flock is excluded from the tournament
`thereby affecting all growers' pay.
`
`ss. Case controls whether a grower's flock gets an exception thereby affecting
`all growers' pay.
`
`tt. Case controls which growers are ranked against each other.
`
`13.
`
`Under this one-sided arrangement, the growers are subject to the strict and
`
`unrelenting control of every detail by Case. The only thing a grower can truly call his/her own is
`
`the extensive debt that is accumulated as a direct result of meeting Case' strict demands.
`
`
`
`
`6
`Case 5:20-cv-00103 Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 6 of 34
`
`

`

`14.
`
`As all local growers working for Case are required to do, Plaintiff entered into an
`
`unconscionable adhesion grow-out contract with Case titled "Broiler Production Agreement".
`
`15.
`
`Once the growers receive the chicks they care for the chicks for approximately 60
`
`days or 8.5 weeks depending on Case's required weight of the bird at the end of the grow-out
`
`process.
`
`16.
`
`Case is easily able to exert such control and enforce such unconscionable
`
`arrangements because it is virtually the only broiler integrator to which the local growers can turn.
`
`There is virtually no other viable option, especially when Case defames and lies to the community
`
`about a farmer, as Plaintiff has been painfully made aware since Case unlawfully terminated the
`
`poultry growing arrangement. The Production Agreement gave Case monopoly power over
`
`Plaintiff and all the other growers by entangling them in Case' archaic, abusive and unconscionable
`
`payout system, better known throughout the industry as the "tournament system."
`
`17.
`
`This scheme benefits Case in many ways. Case is able to exercise all the control
`
`that an employer would exercise over an employee, but with none of the responsibility. Case does
`
`not have to pay the grower minimum wage or overtime nor is it subject to the North Carolina Wage
`
`and Hour Act; can literally require the grower to be on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week; is
`
`not responsible for workers compensation or unemployment insurance; is not liable under Title
`
`VII or the North Carolina law for discrimination claims; and, can force the grower to bear all the
`
`costs of building and equipment maintenance and any upgrades it sees fit to require, as here where
`
`Plaintiff was forced to take out burdensome loans just to pay for the privilege of caring for Case's
`
`chickens.
`
`18.
`
`The compensation for growers such as Plaintiff is meted out according to the so-
`
`called "tournament system." Plaintiff was ranked against other Case growers whose flocks were
`
`
`
`
`7
`Case 5:20-cv-00103 Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 7 of 34
`
`

`

`also processed in the same period, based upon the "Marketable Broiler Live Weight" (basically
`
`the weight of the chickens when fully grown), divided by the "Weighted Average Formula Cost"
`
`(the cost of feed and medication Case had to supply to care for the chickens). Presumably, this
`
`tournament system should start with a level playing field for all the growers, but such is not the
`
`case. The values upon which the tournament system is based are in no small part determined by
`
`the quality of chickens, feed and medicine provided by Case to the individual growers.
`
`19. Case defrauded Plaintiff through the tournament system and subjected Plaintiff to
`
`unlawful practices by unilaterally imposing and utilizing a ranking system that can be, and in fact
`
`was, arbitrarily and capriciously manipulated. By ranking individual growers, including Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant wrongfully pits each grower against the other, arbitrarily punishing what Case deems
`
`to be a less successful grower based upon criteria which are virtually under the total control of
`
`Case, and which are never revealed, explained or discussed with the growers.
`
`20.
`
`The tournament system is designed to increase Case's profits at the expense of,
`
`and to the severe detriment of, its growers, including Plaintiff, and thereby decreasing the profits
`
`of its growers, including Plaintiff. Case defrauded Plaintiff by unilaterally imposing and utilizing
`
`the tournament system, which wrongfully placed Plaintiff in competition with their fellow
`
`growers, all the while requiring Plaintiff to accept chicks that are genetically different, and chicks
`
`in varying degrees of health. Likewise, the feed supplied by Case is of dissimilar quantity, quality
`
`and consistency, and is often delivered inappropriately and in an untimely manner. Plaintiff was
`
`ranked against each of the other growers even though they possessed dissimilar facilities,
`
`equipment and technology. Additionally, Plaintiff received differing degrees of technical
`
`assistance and was required to comply with management practices that were inconsistent with his
`
`fellow growers.
`
`
`
`
`8
`Case 5:20-cv-00103 Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 8 of 34
`
`

`

`21.
`
`The end result of the tournament system is the imposition of an arbitrary and
`
`capricious ranking of each grower, which is designed to insure Case's ability to wrongfully
`
`control its cost of operations at the expense of its growers, including Plaintiff, and to maintain
`
`undue financial dominance over Plaintiff and their fellow growers. Under this arbitrary and
`
`capricious system a chicken grower can rank at the top of his group for one flock, and then just
`
`eight weeks later, using the exact same animal husbandry practices, rank at the bottom of the
`
`group for the next flock.
`
`22. Despite its arbitrary internal ranking system, Case receives the same sale price for
`
`its comparable products sold no matter the type of facilities and equipment that were located on
`
`the farm where the chickens were cared for. Case's tournament system is the classic "rob Peter
`
`to pay Paul" scenario that is unfair, unjustly discriminatory and deceptive, as well as unduly and
`
`unreasonably prejudicial and disadvantageous to Plaintiff and their fellow growers.
`
`23. Case has and continues to fraudulently conceal from said growers, including
`
`Plaintiff, material facts regarding the detrimental effect to said growers, including Plaintiff,
`
`resulting from the tournament system.
`
`24.
`
`The key variables that determine growers' scores, ranking, and ultimately, their
`
`compensation, are entirely under Case's control and therefore subject to manipulation without
`
`detection by the growers, enabling Case to artificially depress a particular grower's payout, and
`
`which it did manipulate, in fact, to artificially depress Plaintiff’spayouts.
`
`25.
`
`The inequity of the tournament system was exposed in an online poultry
`
`publication article about a study done by the Poultry Science Association discussing the
`
`importance of certain determinative factors involved in the broiler grow-out process.
`
`
`
`
`9
`Case 5:20-cv-00103 Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 9 of 34
`
`

`

`26.
`
`The Poultry Science Association ("PSA") was established in 1908. According to
`
`its webpage, https://www.poultryscience.org, the PSA is a professional organization consisting
`
`of approximately 1,800 educators, scientists, extension specialists, industry researchers,
`
`administrators, producers, and college students who are committed to advancing the poultry
`
`industry. Since 1908, PSA has maintained a level of prestige that ranks it among the top
`
`professional organizations in the field. For over a century, PSA's member scientists have
`
`contributed through their research to the progress of the poultry industry and the development of
`
`safer and more nutritious food products for the consumer. Throughout this period, PSA has served
`
`- and it continues to serve - as the premier clearinghouse and publisher of basic and applied
`
`poultry research in the world. The application of research findings published in PSA's journals
`
`has been and remains a major contributor to the rapid growth and maturation of the meat and egg
`
`industries. In addition, poultry-related research has made substantial contributions to the overall
`
`understanding of human health and nutrition. Its webpage lists its objectives as follows:
`
`k. To stimulate the discovery, application and dissemination of knowledge.
`l. To create a forum for the exchange of information among various segments of the
`poultry industry.
`m. To publish original research, reviews and timely information in the official PSA
`publications: Poultry Science® and the Journal of Applied Poultry Research.
`n. To recognize outstanding professional achievement.
`
`27.
`
`In July of 2011, the PSA sponsored a symposium in St. Louis addressing the
`
`
`
`future of the poultry industry, hot topics of current economics, and questions surrounding the
`
`future of food agriculture. Experts in poultry science examined the fields of genetics, nutrition,
`
`hatchery management, vaccination/immune modulation, coccidiosis control and antibiotic use.
`
`It was discussed and reiterated in an article written by Christine Alvarado, Ph.D., a Professor at
`
`Texas A & M University
`
`and
`
`published
`
`by WATT Ag Net.com,
`
`
`
`
`10
`Case 5:20-cv-00103 Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 10 of 34
`
`

`

`https://www.wattagnet.com/articles/10194-genetics-plays-large-role-in-poultry-industry-s-
`
`future. Portions of her article stated as follows:
`
`"The reason the industry has been so successful is improvements in genetic potential of
`breeds to achieve efficient production standards with proper nutrition, environmental
`management and health. Based upon the overall conclusions of the symposium, genetics
`is critical to the successful future of the industry. According to Leeson, genetics account
`for 90% of the current and future status of the poultry industry, while the remaining criteria
`of nutrition (5%), environment (3%) and health (2%) are considered supporting roles."
`
`
`
`28. Although Case controls at least 98% of the of the grow-out process it ranks
`
`growers as if they alone determine the outcome of the grow-out process thereby shifting all of its
`
`economic risks in the grow-out process to the growers thereby using the tournament system
`
`(settlement) as an unfair, unjustly discriminatory and deceptive rigid cost controlling device. This
`
`allows Case to pay its growers in a manner that causes huge swings in the amount of
`
`compensation each grower receives in any given settlement. This is done even though there are
`
`countless variables controlled by Case that exist between the inputs into the grow-out process on
`
`each grower's farm.
`
`29. Not surprisingly, the federal government recently also determined that poultry
`
`farmers, like the Plaintiff, lack the independence needed to justify the award of small business
`
`loans. In the Executive Summary of a March 2018 report entitled, "Evaluation of SBA 7(A)
`
`Small Business Administration Loans to Poultry Farmers," the Inspector General of the Small
`
`Business Administration (SBA OIG) summarized their findings:
`
`"We found that 7(a) loans made to growers did not meet regulatory and SBA
`requirements for eligibility. The large chicken companies (integrators) in our
`sample exercised such comprehensive control over the growers that the SBA Office
`of the Inspector General believes the concerns appear affiliative under SBA
`regulations. Specifically, in our review of a sample of 11 7(a) loans made to
`growers, as well as a review of defaulted 7(a) loans to growers, we found integrator
`control exercised through a series of contractual restrictions, management
`agreement, oversight inspections, and market controls. This control overcame
`
`
`
`
`11
`Case 5:20-cv-00103 Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 11 of 34
`
`

`

`
`
`practically all of a grower's ability to operate their business independent of
`integrator mandates.
`
`This control was enforced through close integrator oversight, management
`agreements, and grower-integrator communication. A grower's failure to comply
`with these requirements could result in a significant decrease in integrator
`payments, a reduction in flock placements, or a cancellation of the contract. A
`grower's economic viability was based upon a performing production contract
`with an integrator and is the true basis for grower income and facility value."
`
`
`The report goes on to state "entities are affiliates of each other when one controls or has the
`
`power to control the other. It does not matter whether control is exercised, so long as the power
`
`to control exists." The SBA OIG went on to state that their "observation of such control was
`
`further supported by research, studies, and reports from governmental, academic, and trade
`
`publications, as well as interviews with various lenders, growers, and staff of Federal agencies
`
`and academic institutions."
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff David Lutz’ father acquired their family farm in Lincoln County in 1957,
`
`and Plaintiff David Lutz has farmed this land his entire life. Plaintiff David Lutz raised his family
`
`on this farm, and the land is currently home to his two daughters and their families, including his
`
`grandchildren. In 2013, Plaintiff David Lutz had preliminary conversations with Case with case
`
`managers Marvin Cumberland and Greg Chapman to build chicken houses on his family farm.
`
`31.
`
`In these preliminary discussions with Case managers, including Marvin
`
`Cumberland and Greg Chapman such Case managers sat at the kitchen tables of Plaintiff’s home
`
`and provided Plaintiff with detailed financial projections (see Ex. “1” attached hereto), which
`
`Plaintiff provided to his bank to secure loans, secured upon title to his family farm, to initially
`
`build and equip their chicken farms. Experience has shown that these projections provided by
`
`Case were wildly incorrect. Upon information and belief, Case managers similarly sat in the
`
`homes of all growers in North Carolina, like Plaintiff, and told them to rely upon the same false
`
`
`
`
`12
`Case 5:20-cv-00103 Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 12 of 34
`
`

`

`financial statements. Mangers Doug Hatley and Bradley Shore told Plaintiff the same things,
`
`again, and again, on the phone calls, and in person, in 2013 and beyond.
`
`32.
`
`Case Farms managers Marvin Cumberland, Greg Chapman, Doug Hatley, and
`
`Bradley Shore, have at all times known that these financial projection sheets are relied upon by
`
`growers, like Plaintiff, and his banks, in deciding whether to enter into contracts with Case. Case
`
`has known at all times that its financial projections provided to growers, like Plaintiff, are wildly
`
`incorrect, and yet does nothing to correct such financial statements nor advise or inform growers
`
`of their falsity. Upon information and belief, neither Carolina Farm Credit nor People’s bank will
`
`underwrite chicken farm construction or improvement loans for Case growers because these banks
`
`find Case’s financial projections to be completely unreliable, and that farmers growing chickens
`
`for Case, like Plaintiff, lose money, not make money. Case managers have known this at all times
`
`and deliberately misrepresented the opportunity for financial profit to growers like Plaintiff, as
`
`well as to banks, all of whom rely upon Case to their detriment.
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff David Lutz signed his first contracts with case in 2013; attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit “2”.
`
`34.
`
`Case managers Marvin Cumberland, Greg Chapman, Doug Hatley, and Bradley
`
`Shore told Plaintiff he had to sign his contracts without modification, were not allowed to consult
`
`with an attorney before signing, and were not provided with a copy of the contract at the time they
`
`signed them. These contracts contain no arbitration clause, provide no advance notice of
`
`termination of the contract, and no right to cure any alleged breach of contract. Upon information
`
`and belief, Case followed the same protocols for all farmers in North Carolian signing Broiler
`
`Production Agreements with Case, including such statements that they had to sign without
`
`modification, nor provided copies, nor permitted to consult with an attorney.
`
`
`
`
`13
`Case 5:20-cv-00103 Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 13 of 34
`
`

`

`35.
`
`These same Case managers gave Plaintiff business cards of the only contractors
`
`they were allowed to use to build their farms. Copies of such business cards are attached as Exhibit
`
`“3”. He was provided a construction binder specifying all aspects of construction required by
`
`Case, attached as Exhibit “4”.
`
`36.
`
`These same Case managers told Plaintiff David Lutz in 2013 that he could continue
`
`farming until he wanted to retire and then his children could continue farming with Case if they
`
`wanted; that Case had contract farmers with them more than 30 years.
`
`37.
`
`Upon information and belief, these same Case managers made the same or similar
`
`knowingly false statements about the term and length of the Broiler Production Agreements to all
`
`growers in North Carolina in order to induce them to sign.
`
`38.
`
`In 2016, in the process of expanding his farm, Plaintiff David Lutz was told by
`
`these same Case managers that he needed to sign a new Broiler Agreement; attached as Exhibit
`
`“5”.
`
`39.
`
`Upon information and belief, all Case growers in North Carolina signed the same
`
`form of contract from 2016 onward.
`
`40. With respect to the 2016 contract, Case’s managers including Doug Hatley and
`
`Bradley Shore told Plaintiff that they “had to sign it right now”, and that it was “identical to the
`
`prior one.” Specifically, this 2016 contract was laid across the hood of Plaintiff’s truck, and he
`
`was told by Case managers present that “it did not matter what was in it, he needed to sign it, or
`
`he would not get any more chickens.” Growers were not given any time to read it before signing,
`
`much less any opportunity to consult with legal counsel. Upon information and belief, this same
`
`protocol was followed by all Case managers in getting Case growers in North Carolina to sign the
`
`2016 contracts.
`
`
`
`
`14
`Case 5:20-cv-00103 Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 14 of 34
`
`

`

`41.
`
`In fact, the 2016 Agreement was not “identical” to prior versions, and adds a new
`
`“arbitration” provision not present in the 2012 agreement. As addressed below, the 2016 agreement
`
`arbitration provision does not clearly and conspicuously identify his right to decline arbitration,
`
`nor the costs of arbitration. It has no advance notice of termination, nor right to cure alleged
`
`breach. Plaintiff, nor any other Case growers in North Carolina, were not provided with a copies
`
`of the 2016 agreement at the time they signed them, and indeed not until years later; even now the
`
`copies they were provided by Case are missing pages!
`
`42.
`
`Once a flock was delivered, Plaintiff would then care for the birds according to
`
`strict and meticulous guidelines imposed by Case. When the flock matured, normally a sixty one
`
`day process, Case would transport the flock to its processing facility.
`
`43.
`
`Case managers, including Marvin Cumberland, Greg Chapman, Doug Hatley and
`
`Bradley Shore, misrepresentations that Plaintiff would continue to receive chickens was the
`
`primary inducement for them to enter into their initial agreements with Case, as well as repeating
`
`such false statements in later years to convince Plaintiff to expend funds to improve his chicken
`
`houses. A well-constructed poultry house has an average life span of approximately 30 years.
`
`However, with proper maintenance and improvements its life span can increase to 45 to 50 years.
`
`Case managers, including Marvin Cumberland, Greg Chapman, Doug Hatley and Bradley Shore,
`
`know that growers, like Plaintiff, needs fifteen (15) years just to pay off the indebtedness.
`
`44.
`
`Case managers, including Marvin Cumberland, Greg Chapman, Doug Hatley and
`
`Bradley Shore, knew that their representations to Plaintiff that they would continue to receive
`
`chickens as long as they grew good birds were false and misleading, and were intended to induce
`
`Plaintiff to build his facilities in 2013 and 2016, and 2017, at his expense, a precondition to Case's
`
`continuing to contract with Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`
`15
`Case 5:20-cv-00103 Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 15 of 34
`
`

`

`45.
`
`Case designates one of its employees to oversee the operations of a particular
`
`grower such as Plaintiff. Some of the flock supervisors/service technicians (service techs) who
`
`controlled operations of Plaintiff was Matt Lane, Kevin Martin, Tim Frankie, Daniel Beach, Joseph
`
`Perkins, and Kyle Settelmire. Case managers including Doug Hatley and Bradley Shore,
`
`specifically said Case specificly assigned its most junior and inexperienced service men to work
`
`with its best growers. Case, viewing Plaintiff as its best, therefore sent Plaintiff service techs who
`
`had never before worked with chickens. Such were the “resources” made available to Plaintiff for
`
`advice and guidance.
`
`46.
`
`Case and its service techs and management exercised control over every aspect of
`
`Plaintiff’s grow-out operation as described in paragraphs above.
`
`47.
`
`Case managers including Marvin Cumberland, Greg Chapman, Doug Hatley and
`
`Bradley Shore, knowingly made, and continue to make, materially false representations, both
`
`written and oral, about future income, costs, expenses, company policies and working relationships
`
`to Plaintiff, or concealed related material facts and information, including but not limited to, the
`
`"tournament system" and the inequities related thereto to accomplish this inducement, knowing
`
`that Plaintiff was ignorant as to the falsity of these representations and that it would accept them
`
`as the truth and rely thereon to its own consequence and proximate injury. Plaintiff and growers
`
`like him were required to financially encumber real and personal property and to convert its real
`
`property to a sole use thereby functionally depreciating said property and devaluing said property
`
`and rendering Plaintiff as a mere tenant, totally at the mercy of the Defendant.
`
`48.
`
`During the course of their relationship prior thereto, and continuing to the present
`
`Case managers, including Marvin Cumberland, Greg Chapman, Doug Hatley and Bradley Shore,
`
`materially misled Plaintiff as to th