Welcome welcome back to this week's episode of the Emily show today we are breaking down the wrongful death lawsuit against Karen Reed and we have to talk quickly about what's going on in Idaho because there is a hearing coming up on Thursday this week on August 29th and that is a pretty big hearing on the change of venue so we're going to do a quick overview of what to expect there and then dive into that wrongful death lawsuit plus we are still waiting on the Gerard verdict so if you don't have the law app now is a great time to remind you well for me to remind you that that's where you want to be because that's where those updates are going to be put by me the fastest things go in the lawn app before they go anywhere else all right let's get into today's Intro episode welcome to the Emily show I'm Emily dbaker the internet's go-to legal analyst and big fan of the cury words I've been a licensed attorney for over 17 years I'm a former prosecutor and I break down the legal side of pop culture and entertainment store we can't stop talking about we should just get into it let's Factor Ad Spot go a huge thank you to today's sponsor Factor the only way I've really been getting healthy meals while I've been covering the Corey richens preliminary hearing on live stream and having a balanced meal with protein and veggies that was ready to go in 2 minutes that had been delivered to my door was such a relief it can help me meet my goals of eating more protein without defaulting to a choice I don't want to make just because it's easy Factor has meals ready for you no matter what your Wellness goal is whether it's getting in more protein going keto or just looking for ready too Chef prepared meals with fresh ingredients not only does Factor have over 35 different meals to choose from but they have over 60 add-ons including fresh juices breakfast dessert and you have lots of options for premium ingredients like fet minan shrimp and Blacken salmon so no matter what your life has going on you don't have to shop cook or clean up and you can still have a chef quality healthy meal ready to go so thank you factor for making sure I get well balanced meals even when life is not so well balanced and if you're ready to try factor for yourself head over to factor meals.com b50 use code ed50 to get 50% off your first box plus 20% off your next month that's code EDB 50 at Factor meals to get 50% off your first box and 20% off your next month while your subscription is active let's get back to today's episode four a quick update in the Tom Girardi gerardi fraud trial as of the recording of this episode kneed deep in the middle of the Corey richens preliminary hearings in Utah Gerard's jury is out on his wire fraud counts the government alleging that he stole from four of his clients some of those clients are well known and what has happened to them has been really well established will the jury find those thefts to be wire fraud will they find that Tom gerardy knew what he was doing or not we will see if that jury comes back before this episode airs and probably have an addendum at the end and if not then we are still waiting but the four counts went to victims that we have seen from the housewife and the Hustler to the State Bar charges against Tom gerardi for theft from clients and the State Bar laid it out real clearly and so did the rug Gomez family they did not get their money Tom Gerard's attorneys arguing that he's just a sweet old guy y'all and you know it wasn't him there was fraud but it was all the CFO so they leaned all the way in to that empty chair defense you know the some other dude did it or the Shaggy It Wasn't Me It's pointing at the CFO who is not on trial at this time but will be later during the course of that trial we also learned that investigators are looking into four other attorneys from that firm two of those attorneys David lra and Keith Griffin have already been in indicted in Illinois will they be indicted in Los Angeles with others we will see all of that will bolster the ongoing and numerous civil litigations the thing that's difficult with all of the civil litigation pending is that gerardi doesn't have the money and neither does the firm will they be able to recover funds from other attorneys or Erica gerardi in the civil cases is yet to be seen but what do we know for sure up on this channel the government will get theirs so those forfeitures the government will be pursuing handily to get back monies for the victims of the four charges in this prosecution if Tom gerardi is convicted um easier than those victims going after it civil or going after it in the bankruptcy but the bankruptcy which is not done yet is going to complicate all of that no Eric kardi did not testify yes behind the scenes of Real Housewives unaired clips of Real Housewives were played in the trial showing Tom jardy interacting with Erica and others when the Housewives of Beverly Hills were at his house and yes her company EJ Global was discussed in this case but again she as spousal privilege she is not on trial here so while she was talked about Erica jardi was not actually at this trial was not physically present was not called to testify or anything like that and it's Tom Girardi Addendum Emily from Tuesday August 27th after recording with your addendum Tom dry was convicted today of four counts of wire fraud those are all the counts before the jury Tom Dr is facing up to 80 years in prison and we will learn much more about what the government is seeking when we get their sentencing memorandums he will be sentenced in early December 2024 he is facing quite a lot of prison time and what we learned from the Alec murall sentencing is that judges very much do not like attorneys that steal from vulnerable clients remember that the prosecution will also be able to bring in pattern of behavior evidence so more than just the four charged clients other clients who were not charged other instances and the Bar complaints that go back decades so if you are not caught up in all of the gerardi stuff there is a whole playlist from when this case broke in 2020 to now with some of the things that I'm sure the feds will bring into their sentencing memorandums when that pre-sentencing report is done so we will see jority back in court in December of 2024 for sentencing likely to prison the Brian cober trial the court has Bryan Kohberger indicated is going to take maybe four months and they are looking at a summer 2025 trial date for the quadruple homicide that Brian cergar has been charged with in Idaho the litigation in this case has been busy just busy since the beginning of the case much of it sealed some of it public some of it was sealed and then became public and there was much fighting at the last hearing over that the hearings have been very interesting judge judge and yes that is his name Judge John C judge really does enjoy the uh intellectual curiosity of it all and sometimes those hearings go on quite a bit under the judge's questioning as well I think he just enjoys chatting with the lawyers sometimes the lawyers all look like they are ready to move it along the hearing that is coming up on Thursday August 29th is a hearing for change of venue the defense attorneys have been arguing about this for quite a while and remember there were those hearings in the Middle where the prosecution was like your honor what the defense is contacting the potential jury pool the prosecution argued to the court the defense the defense is actually causing the problem that they are seeking to not cause by the questions that they are asking the defense ringing people up and being like so do you think Brian cobber is guilty did you hear did you hear he might have followed one of the victims on social media did you hear this did you hear that the prosecution said by nature of the questions they are in fact causing the problem that they are saying exists so they're going to cause the problem then say see there's a problem and then seek to move the trial outside of the county where Moscow Idaho is so there was a whole Hearing in the middle about whether the surveys of potential jurors would be allowed to continue the court allowed those to continue the motion practice has gone on and now we are coming to hearing the defense saying hey per the surveys there is no way we can have this trial in this County the jury pool is hopelessly tainted by the substantial amount of public interest in news media here we have to move this to a larger County where the case is not as well known and the defense has been indicating that they want to move that to Boise and have a larger jury pool to grab from and a jury pool that might not have been as tuned into to National media could this backfire on them yes because they have said your honor this case garnered International media and so the prosecution we may see arguing well your honor if there's International media there is no County that's not heard of it so we should just leave it here in Moscow this community has a deeply vested interest in this case you know that the fight over cameras in the courtroom will come up at some point with all of this because the prosecution is going to say this community is invested they need to be present and the court is going to say anyone can be present because they can watch it via stream the Court's already taken over streaming in that case they've kicked out any pool cameras and said we're just going to stream it directly to our YouTube channel and we'll control the cameras it's like uh cpan in Idaho so the court will have that option but of course we'll see the prosecution saying that moving it is deeply inconvenient for those connected to this case for the victim's families for the victim's friends for the college community and for Witnesses so will the court Grant this change of venue could or could not it's really going to depend if the court thinks that everyone has been exposed to the media in this case then there is no point to move it because there is no place to move it within the state of Idaho that is uh less aware and then you have to solve the issue with very narrowly tailored and very specific jury questions in Vader but remember even if this gets denied by the court you can get into Vader because the prosecution's also arguing this is premature you can get into Vader and start getting questionnaires back from jurors and go um so your honor now we actually can't pick a jury pool we've sent out 900 uh questionnaires or whatever they're going to end up sending out and we're getting them back and everybody is responding that they can't um be open-minded about this case and we saw that happening in the mura second Financial crimes case ahead of that case pleaing we saw murda's attorneys undergoing jury surveys and coming into court saying okay well now we need to change venue here are all the surveys indicating that jurors were tuned in to the murom murder trial and because they were so invested in that they can't separate what they learned in the murder trial from this financial crimes case and they waited until the surveys were being done could this judge kick this down the road and say you know what all of this has been fascinating but I agree with the prosecution it is premature we need to survey the jurors first and then decide he absolutely could do that has this judge pushed decisions off and down the road somewhat frequently yep sure has so will we see this decided on Thursday absolutely not we will absolutely not see any decision at the end of Thursday's hearing this is going to be taken under submission probably for quite a while and the court could punt till later and say you know what we really do need the jury surveys the theory is all great but until we really get down to Brass tax we're not GNA know and that puts all of the counties in a bad position because the case is already pushed out till summer 2025 the prosecution's already kicking a bit about how far out this case has gotten pushed and the defense is still saying you're honor I don't even know if we're going to be ready by summer 2025 so the judge might say you know what let's start surveying the jury ahead of the trial and if we have to move it and change venue then it's probably going to kick that case out another eight months but the defense is not arguing that this case needs to go to trial faster the defense at this point wants a lot more time remember it terabytes of data that they're going through and they're still fighting overis Discovery and that I'm sure we'll hear a little bit more about in the hearing on Thursday again the laer app is where you stay in the loop on that we need to go from Idaho to [Laughter] Massachusetts chat was like we had to Karen Read play the bumper and I was like we did and for those of you saying what do you mean chat we record quite a lot of the podcast episodes with our members and so so chat was like but we need EDB air so for the video the video crew you got that if you're listening on audio only you're going to have to go to YouTube and then you can see our beautiful EDB air bumper let's talk about the Karen Reed case we know that the court has denied Karen Reed's motion to dismiss the defense has vowed to appeal well of course they will that is going to wind through the courts the Karen Reed case is set to go to trial in January 20 25 so actually before the coburger case we might get two Karen Reed trials before coburger ever goes to trial so we'll see but as we get further along and as we see the appeals and what the appell court may or may not do we'll have a better understanding of whether or not this will actually go to trial I really don't see the defense putting their foot down and saying no make this go to trial I see the defense fighting forward to get this appeal done before it ever goes to ret trial and I think that's probably in all of their best interest but while the criminal case is winding its way through appeals and back to a retrial we now see a wrongful death lawsuit we have seen this in other criminal cases the one you probably remember if you're in my audience is the OJ Simpson case there were wrongful death suits where OJ was found liable for the wrongful death of Nicole Brown Simpson and of Ron Goldman and then everyone fought over over the money forever and ever to try to recover from those wrongful death lawsuits but he was acquitted in the criminal trial so yes you can have civil liability when there is not criminal liability the standards are different it is lower you don't have to have a unanimous jury in most jurisdictions these things can settle out of court so there are lots of factors that play in here and we saw how much a wrongful death law suit played into the murdog case when we were looking at that mallerie beach lawsuit and how much the mallerie beach lawsuit and the discovery in the mallerie beach lawsuit was not just pushing on Murda but was pushing on the gas station that had sold liquor to Paul Murda and others the discovery becomes a large and critical part of any civil wrongful death case and there are things in the wrongful death case that the family may be able to obtain that they don't have from the criminal case or that they've not been given from the criminal investigation because that case is still ongoing I wonder what John O'Keefe's family will unearth from any federal investigations and I wonder if it will be helpful here or not let's take a look at who's being sued what they're being sued for and what is being alleged thank you to today's sponsor Lume Ad Spot Lumi it is that time of year for me when my kids are back in school but it is still so stinking hot outside but that doesn't stop me from working snack bar duty at the high school football games to support the band so I make sure that I am rocking my Lumi whole body deodorant so that I know no matter how hot it gets inside the snack bar while people are pumping out nachos that I am covered one of the things I really like about Lumi whole body deodorant is you really can use it from your pits to your feet and all of the bits in between if you've not tried Lumi yet the Lumi starter pack is perfect for new customers because you get a deodorant stick and a tube of deodorant plus you can choose two free products of your choice like the deodorant wipes that I love and the body wash that further supports breaking down that body odor so you can start with your cleansing in the shower and carrying it all the way through using your whole body deodorant plus you get free shipping so as a special offer for our listeners new customers get 15% off and if you combine that with the discount of the bundled starter pack that's over 40% off so use code laer to get 15% off your first purchase at Lumi deodorant.com that's code lonard at l deod d o r nt.com let's get back to today's episode so first up this was filed in Massachusetts in Wrongful Death Lawsuit Plymouth County on August 26 2024 this is Paul O'Keefe suing as a personal representative or a PR of the estate of John Joseph O'Keefe III Paulo Keef is also suing individually so on his own behalf Margaret O'Keefe is suing on her own behalf John O'Keefe the second the victim's father is suing on his own behalf and then Margaret O'Keefe is suing as the grandparent and guardian of Kaylee John O'Keefe's niece they are suing as a group CF McCarthy's the waterfall and Karen Reed so the hospitality companies that are doing business as those bars I'm going to refer to the bars CF McCarthy's and the waterfall as that because that's how we know them from the trial and I'm going to do my best to not say CF MC Cathy but I can't promise you it's going to go well with me trying not to say it after listening to this trial for nine weeks they go through parties and jurisdictions they talk about who everyone is we know who these parties are I am not going to go through it but again Paul is suing on behalf of himself and behalf of the estate Margaret John O'Keefe's mother is suing on her own behalf and on behalf of his niece who he was taking care of let's get right into the facts plain repeats re alleges and incorporates by reference everything set forth here too so all of the parties jurisdiction who everybody is deant JJ which is what they are calling uh the victim John Joseph O'Keefe the decedent JJ was the middle of three children in a tight-knit family JJ was a third generation Boston police officer after the tragic death of JJ's sister Kristen and brother-in-law Steve JJ took custody guardianship over his niece Kaylee and nephew Patrick who were six and three respectively over the next eight years until his tragic passing JJ raised and supported his niece and nephew and yes they are suing on behalf of the niece the nephew is not mentioned I don't know why they've made that choice but that is a choice that was made in this lawsuit could there be another lawsuit maybe um but I don't don't know if there is a reason they did that if the nephew chose that or um if that is a quirk of law in Massachusetts that allows for just one beneficiary to be sued for they go on to say at all relevant times honor before January 29th 2022 JJ and defendant Reed were in a dating relationship in the months weeks and days leading up to January 22nd JJ and defendant Reed's relationship was deteriorating during such time defendant Reed picked fights experienced jealousy and had delusions of unfaithfulness well they're definitely not um holding back on that on her about January 28th defendant Reed knew that the relationship with JJ had run its course I don't know how they know that but we'll be interested and seeing how they try to prove that up in Discovery I'm you know law enforcement already has all the cell phone dumps so they're going to have all the text messages and then the testimony we didn't see from the niece and nephew about the fights that uh John and Karen were having leading up to this the niece and nephew will know that as well on January 28th honor about 851 p.m. POF arrived at CF McCarthy's CF McCarthy's was licensed to distribute sell or serve alcohol on January 28th at about 8:58 p.m. CF McCarthy served Reed an alcoholic beverage Reed consumed said drink I think they're going to go through what we saw at trial and we saw timestamps at this this is one of the things that L actually made clear in the criminal prosecution L went through the videotape from CF McCarthy's and stopped it at different points showing when Karen Reed had consumed what they said was alcohol we didn't see a ton of the receipt the jury had it we didn't see it so there was some discussion like well this could have been just club soda in a shot glass or this could have been this or that this will all bear out in the civil case there's video there's a receipt there will be a bartender who'll be like no those were shots of vodka or what have you and the jury at least from everything we've seen in the litigation subsequent thought that Karen Reed had been drinking based on the fact that they were leaning towards guilt on those lesser included of the DUI count on January 28th CF McCarthy's I I'm I can't help it I can't help it look man we're just feeling the Boston reender my soul my my freshman year at UMass is rearing rearing its head that's where we're at and and they alleg that the bar through its agents servants employees Etc and that is all just legal language for everyone who works there served alcoholic beverage to defendant Reed at or about 9:13 p.m. 9:20 p.m. 9:33 p.m. 957 p.m. 10:22 p.m. and 10:29 p.m. they allege that Reed consumed such drinks it goes on to alleged that CF McCarthy through its agents employees served defendant Reed seven alcoholic drinks between 8:58 and 10:29 p.m. during all relevant times at or before 10:29 p.m. defendant Reed showed signs of intoxication while at CF McCarthy's for all of you that watched the trial you saw the video you can decide for yourself on January 28th at about 10:40 p.m. JJ and Reed left McCarthy's and defendant Reed was allowed to carry her alcoholic drink out of CF McCarthy's I don't know if she was allowed to um she seemed to smuggle it in her jacket I don't know if that was I mean they didn't tackle her she she was able to carry it out I don't know if that was permissive or she was just like yoink at her about 10:54 p.m. on January 28th defendant Reed and JJ entered the waterfall together at all relevant times the waterfall was licensed to distribute sell and serve alcohol Reed walked into the waterfall carrying a drink from CF McCarthy's does it how many times is is going to say at a high top table maybe none wouldn't that be lovely but we all now know intimately with without ever being there or at least most of us without ever being there the interior layout of the waterfall cuz we have seen videos from this bar so many times they go on to allege that we are now after midnight and at all relevant times on January 29th while at the waterfall Reed showed signs of intoxication between 10:54 p.m. and 11:54 p.m. on January 28th the waterfall served Reed one shot and one mixed drink Reed consumed the drinks approximately 12:10 a.m. on January 29th Reed left the waterfall at approximately 12:11 a.m. JJ left the waterfall between 12:11 a.m. and 12:36 a.m. defendant Reed was under the influence of alcohol and unable to drive a motor vehicle safely I'm this is their wrongful death suit but she was not the only one there was so much DUI that night it goes on to say at all relevant times on January 29th defendant Reed drove JJ to the Residence at 34 Fair defendant Reed and JJ had been in an argument the night of January 28th into the morning of January 29th after JJ got out of defendant Reed's vehicle in front of 34 Fairview Reed drove her SUV and hit JJ I don't know if they're going to get into that more but we'll see because it seems that this is what the family thinks happened many have asked how does the family feel about this how does the family feel about Karen Reed and we are seeing some of it in this wrongful death lawsuit it goes on to say at all relevant times on January 29th Reed drove her SUV in a state of intoxication as a result of Reed hitting JJ on January 29th JJ was knocked down onto the ground in front of 34 Fairview suffered Serious injury and died there are still from watching this trial so many questions in this case I don't know if the family will get the answers that they deserve and that they desire through this wrongful death suit but I hope that they do I still have so many questions about how he ended up all the way back by where the fire hydrant was if he was incapacitated at the curb line there are so many questions here and these allegations are really what you expect to see in a civil lawsuit it's just the kind of basic or more barebones allegations of what happened they go on to say that after hitting Jon o'keef with her SUV defendant Reed fled the scene and returned to JJ's Residence at one Meadows AV at at all relevant times Reed knew it was snowing knew there was an impending blizzard there's the snowing knew or should have known that leaving JJ outside in a blizzard would likely result in serious injury or death at all relevant times when defendant Reed drove her SUV and hit JJ Reed failed to use care and avoid creating an unreasonable risk of harm to the public and JJ voluntarily took obvious risks under the circumstances knew or should have known that death or Serious injury was reasonably practicable persisted in a clear negligent course of conduct over a noticeable period of time was impatient with reasonable precautions was deliberately inattentive to the predictable hazards of her actions and was deliberately inattentive when there was a risk of great and immediate danger they go on to say that at all relevant times when she drove her SUV and hit Jon O'Keefe she was Reckless when she intended The Reckless conduct that is a bold allegation that she intended conduct that resulted in joh O'Keefe's death that her conduct made it highly likely that someone namely J O'Keefe would suffer Serious injury or die she had reason to know so this is all the different standards they're alleging they've gone from the highest standard intention to highly likely to known or should have known to unreasonable disregard of the risk so they've gone through all of the different levels of uh liability there they say that Jon's injuries or death resulted from defendant Reed's decision to engage in the conduct referenced above the drunk driving it goes on to allege that on January 29th at 4:30 a.m. defendant Reed knew she hit John o'keef with her SUV nevertheless she woke up John O'Keefe's 14-year-old niece Kaylee and talked about JN O'Keefe's death talked about hitting John o'keef with her SUV and otherwise involved Kaylee in her frantic calls about Jon O'Keefe's death at all relevant times defendant Reed knew Kaye was a vulnerable minor who already lost her parents tragically and depended on her custodial Uncle John O'Keefe who became her surrogate parent I wonder if that is going to go to pain and suffering allegations on or about 5:07 a.m. on January 29th Reed left one Meadows Avenue between 5:18 and 5:35 a.m. Reed knew joh o'keef was seriously injured buried in the snow and lying on the ground in front of 34 Fairview where defendant Reed left JJ to die hours earlier they continue to say that defendant Reed admitted repeat ly that she hit John O'Keefe so they are leaning into those statements that we saw presented at trial the I hit him I HIIT him statements I can only imagine that's what this lawsuit is alleging it goes on to say at 6:03 a.m. on the 29th Reed arrived at 34 Fairview and immediately observed JJ lying on the ground buried in snow where she had earlier left him to die that JJ suffered traumatic injuries before becoming hypmic on her about 7:50 a.m. on the 29th JJ was pronounced dead at the hospital at relevant times after 7:50 a.m. on January 29th defendant Reed went to The Grieving House of JJ feigned comfort to jjj's family and used the opportunity to amongst other things remove the offending weapon her vehicle and or destroy relevant evidence so they are not happy with her at all and while these aren't the most scathing allegations I've ever seen seen in a lawsuit they are making it uh strongly known that they did not believe that she was showing up Back At One Meadows to grieve with John's family that she was doing it to essentially take things out of the home and clear the weapon out of the um home it goes on to allege that on January 29th defendant Reeds blood alcohol draw conversion would have shown a BAC between 0.13 and 0. 29 around the time she drove the SUV and hit John O'Keefe again when this goes through the process of civil yes there will be a fight over retrograde extrapolation this is just the complaint This Is How They are showing they know enough to bring a wrongful death action and alleging that at the time of driving her BAC would have been between 0.13 and 0.29 is based on the state's evidence at trial they say that the BAC of 0.13 to 0.29 exceeds the limits to drive a motor vehicle in Massachusetts yes they alleged that she drove her SUV under the influence of alcohol when she hit J O'Keefe they alleged that as a direct approximate cause of the drunk driving Jon O'Keefe sustained serious injuries of body and mind conscious pain and suffering fear of impending death lost earnings medical funeral and burial expenses and died so that is the whole segment of like the heart of the civil lawsuit for the estate of JN O'Keefe I imagine JN O'Keefe's estate will end up going to his NE and nephew so what is recovered for his conscious pain and suffering fear of impending death loss of earnings injuries that will all end up ultimately going to his niece and nephew as it should I'm interested that they're bringing this next part up in this lawsuit the suit goes on to say notwithstanding her Fifth Amendment right not to speak defendant Reed chose to speak publicly she knowingly and deliberately changed her story and fabricated a conspiracy knowing the same to be false she publicly communicated this false narrative thereby frustrating Justice for JJ such false narrative caused the plaintiff's aggravated emotional distress so they are asking for the emotional distress of Karen Reed telling the public that she did not hit Jon O'Keefe I wonder how that will go legally when they come down to this but this next allegation before they get to the counts shows exactly why they're bringing this complaint they say the plaintiffs listed above bring this complaint seeking full and complete Justice for JJ and that is all in caps well for anyone asking from here forward how does Jon O'Keefe's family feel about all this I think this civil lawsuit has made it quite clear I wonder if the establishments that were providing drinks for Karen Reed will settle uh this lawsuit for the estate the thing is I don't think anyone no matter what they believe about what the state showed in their case I don't think anyone disagrees that Jon O'Keefe's family deserves answers that Jon o Keef's family deserves Justice and that the investigation here was aoll it was appallingly bad I can't imagine the frustration of the family and while that frustration seems to be pointed largely at Karen Reed there has to be frustration towards law enforcement and investigators as well but this is a generational family of Boston PD I wonder how much the federal investigation is going to impact how they feel about that this investigation was not good they did not bring law enforcement into this wrongful death suit there are complications and excessive complications with doing that there are also some hurdles before that can be done with notice that needs to be given if you're suing the government Etc could that happen in the future I wonder if it may when we see the results from the federal lawsuit I wonder if that could happen down the road right now this is pointed at the establishments serving alcohol and at Karen Reed but I wonder if when we get to the end of the investigations and the federal investigation whatever it may be I just wonder if we will have more information because at the end of trial there was not a clear answer for me after sitting there watching 10 weeks of trial and I can't imagine how frustrating that is for everyone involved and you've got two families and an entire community at odds not just a little bit but in such a vitriol way that it also has spilled over into social media not just nationally but internationally it's incredibly unfortunate because it sticks the kids who have lost their mom their dad and their caregiver uncle in the middle of a very vitriolic storm without a lot of answers about what actually happened to their uncle and without the people who should have found those answ ERS doing their job and instead getting in text message groups with their High School buddies and I love a text message group with my high school buddies but getting into a text message group with their High School buddies name calling the defendant Karen Reed from the second this investigation started how did they ever think a jury was not going to look at that as a tainted investigation and that's the least of it the name calling is the least of it thank you to today's sponsor honey love and even though I am Honeylove Ad Spot very ready for the weather to change it's not necessarily time to put away those summer dresses just yet so no matter what your needs are honey love has got you covered and one of the things I always tell you not to sleep on is there sleepwear and yes honey love is like talk about our shapewear I'm like the shapewear is great the laws know it's great but the sleepware the cooling sleepware as the nights continue to be hot and it is Cooling it holds everything in place it is my absolute go-to and I wear the sleepwear not just to sleep but even for getting ready in the morning because it keeps me cool and it is just that comfortable so whether you are looking for their bestselling po short to go under your favorite dress or the bras as the weather starts to change because nobody wants pulling and bunching and bulging when they're wearing their favorite sweater or sleep wear to keep you cool honey love has got you covered and I've got a discount for you treat yourself to the best bras shapewear and sleepware on the market and save 20% off at Honey love.com lawed you can use our exclusive link down below and get 20% off at Honey love.com laer and after you purchase they'll ask where you heard about them be sure to give the love to me and to the show let's get back to today's episode back to this complaint we have gotten to count one which is is the estate of joh Counts 1 - 13 O'Keefe against CF McCarthy's for wrongful death it re alleges everything up above talks about the fact that over serving a clearly intoxicated person is an issue they are going to pull those videos again and take a look at whether Karen Reed seemed visibly intoxicated here's the thing that's going to make these counts difficult for the estate of JN O'Keefe is that the prosecution in the criminal trial against Karen Reed asked every single person that was with them that night did Karen Reed seem intoxicated and every single person including those that had no love loss for Karen Reed said no not a single person and all of them testified about where they sat at the basketball game where they sat at the high top table from families who seem to Loosely know everybody like the kak keus who were a delight in their testimony to some of Jon O'Keefe's close friends who you imagine don't have any love law for Karen Reed to the families that are connected to 34 fear viiew who definitely don't have any love loss for Karen Reed all said she did not seem intoxicated every single person that is going to make these civil counts against the bars very difficult because the bars are going to pull up the transcript of the trial and be like okay so um every single witness here says she didn't seem intoxicated it doesn't mean the bars might not settle as um positive PR being like you know what this is going to the estate of Jon O'Keefe hoping it's going to his niece and nephew and making sure that that is handled they might choose to do that but I don't think they have to based on all the testimony we saw at trial um I don't know how that's on the bartenders when everyone who knew Karen Reed said she didn't seem intoxicated she wasn't falling over she wasn't being held up she wasn't stumbling into tables count two is the state of John O'Keefe versus the waterfall same thing wrongful death um alleging the over serving of Karen Reed count three is the wrongful death between the estate of Jon O'Keefe against Karen Reed saying that on the date of the crash defendant Reed owed John O'Keefe and the public at large a duty not to drink and drive to drive her vehicle safely and with due Care on the date of the crash and at all relevant times it says readed owed John O'Keefe and the public at large a duty to pay attention to the roadway to not drive in an unsafe manner to not drive drunk and that as a direct or approximate cause of Reed's negligence gross negligence and or willful want and Reckless disregard for the safety Jon o'keef sustained serious injuries of body and mind conscious pain and suffering fear of impending death loss earnings medical funeral burial expenses and died some of the testimony at trial is going to make this difficult too the federal investigation hired Reconstructionist and biomechanical engineers and the defense brought in expert coroners who all looked at the pathology of Jon O'Keefe and said this doesn't really match with the way this would have gone down with a car so there is evidence from The Trial that is going to make some of this difficult they are saying that as a result of Karen Reed's negligence and wantan and disregard for the safety of Jon O'Keefe Jon O'Keefe's NEX of kin suffered as well and the next of kin are entitled to Jon O'Keefe's lost value resulting from his wrongful death if you want to talk about some of the weirdest stuff that you go through in law school one of the hardest things to wrap my head around was when we were talking about these types of civil cases and partioning out the value of a lost life how much value that life had potential future earning expenses it's a really weird thing to go through through I have never worked in plaintiff's law I did criminal and I worked with judges but even in working with judges going through these calculations just seemed so strange to me but these are the calculations that happen they are fairly cold calculations there are charts and graphs and um things that look at the average age the relative health and well-being the earning potential and all of these things but it's just a very strange thing to talk about somebody's loss value it goes on to say wherefore the estate of John O'Keefe demands judgment against the defendant Karen Reed on count three for all damages to which the estate is entitled uh compensatory and punitive damages lost value to next ofkin and other relief the court deems appropriate count four is Margaret O'Keefe John's mother versus CF McCarthy's for negligent infliction of emotional distress alleging that Margaret the mother of Jon O'Keefe learned of J kee's admission to the hospital immediately and Came Upon Jon O'Keefe's body at the hospital shortly thereafter that the negligence of the bar caused the death of her son and she suffered severe and profound emotional injuries manifesting in physical symptoms as the result of observing her son at the hospital and witnessing the consequences of the negligence of the bar it then goes on to count five which is John O'Keefe senior against CF McCarthy's for the same negligent infliction of emot distress alleging the same thing count six is Paulo Keefe versus CF McCarthy's for the negligent infliction of emotional distress alleging the same thing that his mother and father did count seven is Margaret O'Keefe versus the waterfall for negligent infliction of emotional distress again alleging that the bar over served um Karen Reed and that caused her distress if any of this is found and there is going to be a fight over this and IED claims for the mother father and brother of Jon O'Keefe but this all gets into very large conversations about if anybody is liable how does this all get portioned etc etc so there are going to be three counts here one for Margaret O'Keefe one for John O'Keefe senior and one for Paul O'Keefe against the waterfall for negligent infliction of emotional distress count 10 is Margaret O'Keefe versus Karen Reed for negligent and or Reckless infliction of emotional distress again saying that Karen Reed is the proximate cause of John O'Keefe's death John O'Keefe's death caused the distress but also but wait there's more Margaret suffered severe and profound emotional injuries manifesting in physical symptoms as the result of observing Jon O'Keefe at the hospital and witnessing the consequences of Reed's negligent defendant Reed outrageously created a false narrative we talked about this more when we were looking at the Florida Statutes about what that outrageous behavior is when we looked at the Gabby Patito Brian laundry lawsuit the civil lawsuit between the parents where we saw Gabby potito's parents suing Brian laundry's parents it is not lost on me that I am recording this on the three-year anniversary of Gabby going missing it's something we saw alleged there where the Patito family sued the laundry family for not just statements they made but statements they made through their lawyer so I'm not surprised that we are seeing these intentional or Reckless and negligent infliction of emotional distress causes of actions over the things that Karen Reed said we saw that in the case in Florida and we're seeing that now here are we going to see this more in the future I don't know maybe but in the petito laundry case the court never really got to take up whether this was an appropriate use of intentional and negligent in ition of emotional distress because that case settled and the settlement is confidential but we are seeing Karen Reed being sued for the quote outrageous false narrative and then they are going on to allege the emotional injuries against Jon O'Keefe's mother father and brother because there is one count for each of them suing Karen Reed for the same thing count 133 is is the niece of Jon O'Keefe suing Karen Reed for negligent Reckless and intentional infliction of emotional distress this is a much different count this count goes to Karen Reed waking Kaylee up in a panic talking about where John was and the distress that that would have caused and did cause to Jon's niece I think this is a very very very different cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress or negligent infliction of emotional distress than it is as to Jon O'Keefe's mom dad and brother here it alleges that at all relevant times Kaylee was the niece of Jon O'Keefe Jon O'Keefe was her guardian since her parents both passed away Kaye learned of JJ's death or injury when defendant Reed woke her up at 4:30 in the morning on January 29th defendant Reed knew Kaye was vulnerable having already lost her parents at the age of six nevertheless in kayle's presence Reed spoke on speaker phone to various people between 4:30 and 5: a.m on January 29th at all relevant times on January 29th Kaylee heard the defendant say JJ never came home maybe I did something maybe a snowplow hit him maybe I had hit him maybe I hit him we were in an argument maybe he got hit by a snowplow as a result of the conversations defendant Reed had in her presence Kay perceived the injuries caused to her guardian Uncle JJ and perceived the injury producing a vent this I'm going to start getting mad here CU then not only did Karen Reed have this conversation with the teen the teen was Home Alone other than Karen being there and then Karen left woke her up freaked her out and then left that that pisses me off off on her about 5:00 a.m. after waking up Kaylee and informing her that something happened to JJ defendant Reed left Kaye home alone so for me as to the niece this is the stronger intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action when you're looking at all of them and it was clear that Karen Reed was panicked absolutely panicked but of all the intentional infliction and negligent infliction Ned and IED causes of action I think this one is the strongest and I imagine that all of those statements that they have grabbed for this civil lawsuit come from exactly what was testified to in trial and there will be transcripts to back those up but also from the conversations I'm sure Kaylee has had with her family members and her surviving family being Jon O'Keefe's mom dad and her other uncle and Aunt they say that defendant Reed intentionally or recklessly inflicted severe emotional distress when she woke up kayy and informed her that she hit her uncle or that maybe a snowplow hit her uncle that she knew or should have known that emotional distress was likely the result from her conduct I mean I don't think Karen Reed was exactly thinking straight but I think when you get into if this ever went to a jury trial when you look at a vulnerable teen versus Karen Reed the empathy aathy there for a jury is going to be looking at but you're the adult even though Karen Reed was terrified but the testimony at trial also showed that Karen Reed knew that John was always in touch with his niece and nephew because of how concerned they were that something would happen to him after losing their parents and then we get all those text messages from Karen Reed to Jon O'Keefe's Phone you've left your niece and you alone they're not here I've left and those text messages in this context in a civil case are not going to go well but it's going to be really hard for Karen Reed to settle just this count even though she may want to without dealing with the rest of it but those text messages aren't going to be great if this ever went to trial a million years down the road from now because it's going to have to go through motions to dismiss and Discovery and the rest of it and the bars will likely try to settle out of it and then you'll end up with this family versus Karen Reed this potentially being one of the stronger cases or one of the stronger counts of action they alleg that Karen Reed's conduct was extreme and outrageous beyond the bounds of decency and was utterly intolerable this is going to be the statutory language for that IED n IED claim um and we see that language echoed across most of the jurisdictions in the US it says then after JJ was declared dead Reed came to the family home and feigned concern rather it became clear that defendant Reed was only there to collect her belongings and take possession of the murder weapon the emotional distress suffered from Kaylee was severe and of a nature that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it defendants extreme and outrageous conduct caused Kaylee aggravated emotional distress manifesting in physical symptoms Kaylee also suffered severe and profound emotional injuries as the result of perceiving JJ's death or the injury producing event the consequences of Reed's negligence they go on to say then read outrageously created a false narrative and then they go on to illuminate further statutorily the injuries caused to Kaye and the severe and profound emotional distress plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all counts and that is the end of that lawsuit in all of it I think this is a family seeking answers that they do not have seeking discovery that they do not have and they say in their lawsuit seek Justice for John O'Keefe I wonder if we will see any litigation against law enforcement I don't know if we will we have seen wrongful death cases be successful where people have been acquitted the evidence here I think is more difficult given the expert testimony at trial I think the causes of action against the bar are going to be difficult in light of the testimony that we've seen I think it'll get past a motion to dismiss and get into discovery which might be what they want I think the cause of action as to the niece might be one of their stronger causes of action and likely the type of cause of action that will get settled we don't see the nephew included here but they did bring causes of actions for the estate and one would hope when they include the loss of support that those Encompass both the niece and the nephew because the only direct cause of action to the niece was the IED and overnight the nephew was not home he was at a friend's house we learned based on testimony and trial so they have very much laid out that they are not happy with Karen Reed they think the bars over served her and they are going to be pursuing this if you are interested I will keep up with this civil litigation remember civil litigation can take years it's not dependent on any outcome in the criminal litigation but everything that happened in the criminal litigation will inform this the witnesses used there the statements made the videos shown it's going to be good for the bar to say hey every single witness said she was not intoxicated her B said that she was but there will be fights over the retrograde extrapolation and the bartenders don't have a breathalyzer that they're giving to people that are ordering drinks at midnight they're looking at the objective symptoms and all of the witnesses said they did not see those so this is not going to be a clear or easy civil lawsuit the clear message here is that the O family is not happy with Karen Reed believes that her um narrative was outrageous that it was a conspiracy and that she has done inextricable damage to their family at the end of the day we will see what happens keep up with everything I'm doing in the law ner app because there is a lot of court to come in the next two months lots of Trials on the docket and you don't want to miss a thing over on the YouTubes so thank you for being here thank you for being Al honered thank you for staying in the loop with everything I'm doing and we will talk to you in the next one may your Wi-Fi be strong may your toilet paper be plentiful may your family be well May the odds be ever in your favor may your may your pumpkin spice be as spicy as the books I am currently reading and I will talk to you soon you can stay up to dat with everything I'm covering on our free IOS and Android app at law nerd app.com or search your app store for law nerd and you can also follow me on social media at the Emily dbaker remember I stream on YouTube on Tuesdays and Thursdays I recap all of that for you in quick bits on Monday and of course the Emily show drops on Wednesdays thanks for being Al honored [Music] keep