Washington County Wilson vs. Soner Tarim Unity School Services Response #Gulen #WoodlandPreparatory

AlaFile E-Notice
To: LOPER THOMAS MATTHEW
tloper@loperlawllc.com
65-CV-2019-900064.00
Judge: GAINES C MCCORQUODALE
NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ALABAMA
The following matter was FILED on 9/9/2019 4:15:30 PM
KRISTA WILSON ET AL V. SONER TARIM ET AL
65-CV-2019-900064.00
MOTION TO STRIKE
Notice Date: 9/9/2019 4:15:30 PM
[Filer: WEBSTER WILLIAM HOUSTON]
VALERIE KNAPP
CIRCUIT COURT CLERK
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ALABAMA
PO BOX 548
CHATOM, AL, 36518
251-847-2239
valerie.knapp@alacourt.gov
45 COURT STREET
D001 TARIM SONER
D002 UNITY SCHOOL SERVICES

Motion to Intervene ($297.00)
Oral Arguments Requested
Pendente Lite
CV201990006400
9/9/2019 4:13:41 PM
0
D001 - TARIM SONER
D002 - UNITY SCHOOL SERVICES
Local Court Costs $
*Motion fees are enumerated in §12-19-71(a). Fees
pursuant to Local Act are not included. Please contact the
Clerk of the Court regarding applicable local fees.
**Motions titled 'Motion to Dismiss' that are not pursuant to Rule 12(b) and are in fact Motions for Summary Judgments are subject to filing fee.
*This Cover Sheet must be completed and submitted to the Clerk of Court upon the filing of any motion. Each motion should contain a separate Cover Sheet.
($50.00)pursuant to Rule
(Subject to Filing Fee)pursuant to Rule
Other
Withdraw
Vacate or Modify
Supplement to Pending Motion
Strike
Stay
Special Practice in Alabama
Sever
Sanctions
Release from Stay of Execution
Quash
Protective Order
Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss
Objection of Exemptions Claimed
New Trial
Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)
More Definite Statement
Joinder
In Limine
Extension of Time
Disburse Funds
Judgment as a Matter of Law (during Trial)
Designate a Mediator
Deposition
Continue
Consolidation
Compel
Change of Venue/Transfer
Amend
Add Party
Other
Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative
SummaryJudgment($50.00)
Judgment on the Pleadings ($50.00)
Renewed Dispositive Motion(Summary
Judgment,Judgment on the Pleadings, or other
DispositiveMotion not pursuant to Rule 12(b)) ($50.00)
Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56($50.00)
Joinder in Other Party's Dispositive Motion
(i.e.Summary Judgment, Judgment on the Pleadings,
orother Dispositive Motion not pursuant to Rule 12(b))
($50.00)
Default Judgment ($50.00)
Motions Not Requiring FeeMotions Requiring Fee
TYPE OF MOTION
WEB030
MONTGOMERY, AL 36104
105 TALLAPOOSA STREET, SUITE 101
WILLIAM H. WEBSTER
Attorney Bar No.:
Name, Address, and Telephone No. of Attorney or Party. If Not Represented.
Name of Filing Party:
CIVIL MOTION COVER SHEET
KRISTA WILSON ET AL V. SONER TARIM ET AL
Revised 3/5/08
Circuit CourtDistrict Court65-WASHINGTON
Unified Judicial System
STATE OF ALABAMA Case No.
Check here if you have filed or are filing contemoraneously
with this motion an Affidavit of Substantial Hardship or if you
are filing on behalf of an agency or department of the State,
county, or municipal government. (Pursuant to §6-5-1 Code
of Alabama (1975), governmental entities are exempt from
prepayment of filing fees)
Date: Signature of Attorney or Party
/s/ WILLIAM H. WEBSTER
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2019 4:14 PM
65-CV-2019-900064.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
VALERIE KNAPP, CLERK
DOCUMENT 40

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
KRISTA WILSON, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. CV 2019-900064
)
SONER TARIM, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MOTION TO STRIKE
COME NOW Defendants Soner Tarim and UnitySchool Services, LLC (collectively, “these
Defendants”), and pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, move to strike
certain paragraphs of the Complaint filed by the Plaintiffs, on the grounds that such paragraphs
consist of “immaterial, impertinent and scandalous matter” which is inappropriate and should be
removed from the record in this case. Specifically, these Defendants state as follows:
1. Rule 12(f), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides that “the court may order stricken from any
pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”
2. In the context of Rule 12(f), the terms “immaterial” and “impertinent” have been
defined as follows:
This court has the obvious power to strike from the pleadings as “immaterial” any
matter having no value in developing the issues of the case. “Impertinence” consists
of any allegation “not relevant” to the issues “involved in the action and which
could not be put in issue or be given in evidence between the parties.”
Oaks v. City of Fairhope, Alabama, 515 F. Supp. 1004, 1032 (S.D. Ala. 1981) (quoting 2A, Moore's
Federal Practice ¶ 12.21(1) at 2420-25 (2d ed. 1979); Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corp., 551
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2019 4:14 PM
65-CV-2019-900064.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
VALERIE KNAPP, CLERK
DOCUMENT 41

F.2d 887 (2d Cir. 1976)) (internal citations omitted; emphasis added).1
3. Similarly, “scandalous” matter includes “allegations that cast a cruelly derogatory
light on a party or other person.” 35A C.J.S. Federal Civil Procedure § 479.
4. While these Defendants take exception to and dispute as untrue most, if not almost
all, the allegations contained in the Complaint (and will, if necessary, file an answer to fullyexpound
on their position), based on the definitions set forth above, a number of allegations contained in the
Complaint are properly stricken pursuant to Rule 12(f), as they are “redundant, immaterial,
impertinent and scandalous.” See Jefferies v. Bush, 608 So. 2d 361, 363 (Ala. 1992).
5. Specifically, the following paragraphs of the Complaint should be stricken, as such
paragraphs consist ofredundant, immaterial, impertinentandscandalous matter, as explained below:
¶ 7 “...Defendant Soner Tarim is a Turkish National....”
This clause is immaterial and impertinent, in that it is without probative value and has no
bearing on any of Plaintiffs’ substantive claims. By pointing out Defendant Tarim’s nationality in
such a gratuitous way, Plaintiffs scandalously seek to portray Defendant Tarim as a foreigner with
questionable values and a suspect agenda, inappropriately feeding into common prejudices and
discriminatory stereotypes against Middle-Easterners, in a blatant effort to smear his reputation and
to unfairly undermine public trust in his abilities, morals, and goals. Defendant Tarim’s country of
origin makes absolutely no difference, and invites unfair discrimination against him based simply
on that one aspect, which is just as improper as pointing out a party’s race, religion, orientation, or
socio-economic background.
1
Federal cases construing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are persuasive authority in
construing the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure because the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure
were patterned after the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Borders v. City of Huntsville, 875
So.2d 1168, 1176 n. 2 (Ala.2003).
DOCUMENT 41

¶ 30. “Defendant Unity has no staff outside of Defendant Soner Tarim.”
This paragraph is untrue, immaterial to anyclaimintheComplaint,portrays theseDefendants
in a false and improper light, improperly calls into question these Defendants’ competency and
abilities, is irrelevant in that it has no bearing on any allegation by which Plaintiffs seek redress and
would be improper as evidence, and seeks to undermine these Defendants in the eyes of the public,
to these Defendants’ prejudice.
¶ 31. “Moreover, Defendant Unity has no physical location despite Defendant
Tarim’s false representation that it does.”
This paragraph is untrue,immaterialtoanyclaim in theComplaint,portrays theseDefendants
in a false and improper light, improperlycalls into question these Defendants’ competency, abilities,
and integrity, is irrelevant in that it has no bearing on any allegation by which Plaintiffs seek redress
and would be improper as evidence, and seeks to undermine these Defendants in the eyes of the
public, to these Defendants’ prejudice.
¶ 33. “On information and belief, Defendant Tarim is also presently the CEO of The
Royal Public School System (hereinafter referred to as ‘Royal’, another Texas-
based entity.”
¶ 34. “On or about January 4, 2019, Defendant Tarim submitted a charter
application to establish multiple start-up charter schools in the Austin, Texas
area.”
¶ 35. WhileDefendantTarim’s Texas charterschool application was pending, he was
actively pushing for the establishment of the Woodland Prep charter school in
Alabama.
The preceding three paragraphs attempt to portray these Defendants in a false light.
Defendant Tarim’s efforts on behalf of the Texas charter school have no bearing on his efforts on
DOCUMENT 41

behalf of Woodland Prep. As education service providers, these Defendants are not limited by § 16-
6F-7(2), Ala. Code 1975, or other law, to provide services to multiple schools, even in Alabama. It
makes no difference whether before or (in this instance) after Commission approval of Woodland
Prep theseDefendants provided services to other entities seeking to open charter schools in Alabama
or elsewhere. These Defendants’ efforts on behalf of other schools, particularly as it relates to
applications filed in other states, under different statutory frameworks and with different
requirements, is immaterial, impertinent, and alleged to incite scandal, seeking to prejudice these
Defendants by portraying them as “outsiders” who are not interested in providing quality education
for the students of Washington County.
¶ 36. “During DefendantTarim’s charterschoolapplication interview with the Texas
Education Agency (the Texas-based equivalent of the Alabama State
Department of Education hereinafter referred to as ‘T.E.A.’), agency members
directly questioned Defendant Tarim about his involvement with Woodland
Prep.”
TheseDefendants’statements to the T.E.A. arenot properlybeforethis oranyotherAlabama
court and are neither material nor relevant to any proceedings here. Although Defendant Tarim
testified truthfully before the T.E.A., to the extent it is felt (without justification) that his testimony
was inaccurate, any scrutiny of such testimony would have been properly taken up, if at all, in Texas
and not in Alabama. Plaintiffs make no attempt to weave any statements made to the T.E.A. into any
semblance of a claim against these Defendants, and it is clear that this and the below paragraphs are
a blatant effort to smear and defame these Defendants’ reputations from within a cloak of judicial
protection.
¶ 37. “Defendant Tarim responded with indirect answers, but explicitly testified that
he wrote Woodland Prep’s charter school proposal.”
DOCUMENT 41

Defendant Tarim answered questions posed to him to the best of his ability, but his testimony
in Texas proceedings is not relevant or material to any claim by Plaintiffs. Moreover, his
participation in drafting the charter school application for Woodland Prep is accurate and not
improper. To suggest otherwise is to attempt to portray these Defendants in a false light, to their
prejudice.
¶ 38. “He expressly stated that he has a vision for not only Texan students but also for
students nationwide and possibly across the world.”
As stated previously, these Defendants are education service providers, and it is neither a
secret nor a source of shame that they have a vision that extends beyond Texas or Alabama. This
allegation has nothing to do with anything.
¶ 39. “Defendant Tarim intentionally provided to the T.E.A. false and misleading
data about the performance of Washington County Schools to the T.E.A.”
This allegation is totally false, and these Defendants stand by their statements regarding the
performance of Washington County Schools and the feasibility and viability of Woodland Prep as
a charter school. The same information Plaintiffs now attack as having been provided in Texas was
provided to the Commission on May 14, 2018. Statements before the T.E.A., even if they were false
(which they were not) are simply not actionable in Alabama. Plaintiffs inappropriately seek to
undermine public trust in these Defendants by trumpeting allegations that they do not and cannot
translate into proper claims.
¶ 40. “Defendant Tarim intentionally provided to the T.E.A. false and misleading
information about the need for a charter school in Washington County.”
See commentary to ¶¶ 34-39.
¶ 41. “But Defendant Tarim intentionally failed to inform the T.E.A. that
Washington County public schools are not failing schools.”
DOCUMENT 41

See commentary to ¶¶ 34-39.
¶ 42. “He intentionally failed to inform the T.E.A. that on the Alabama State
Department of Education’s 2018 State Accountability report, Washington
County public schools received an overall grade of ‘B’ on a scale of ‘A’ to ‘F.’”
See commentary to ¶¶ 34-39. Furthermore, this information was not raised because no one
asked. In any event, the Alabama Department of Education’s State Accountability report, showing
its evaluation of public schools in the county during a single year, is not a necessary indicator of the
“need” for a public charter school in a particular community within that county. These Defendants
are not under an obligation to be apologists for the public school systems in the communitytheyseek
to serve.
¶ 43. “Defendant Tarim intentionally failed to inform the T.E.A. that a large and
broad swath of citizens of Washington County, Alabama have repeatedly
publicly declared that they do not want Woodland Prep or any charter schools
in their community.”
SeeCommentaryto ¶¶ 34- 39. These Defendants testified truthfullyand accurately,but they
have no affirmative obligation to raise counterarguments or discuss opposing points of view
(particularly unwarranted or inaccurate ones) regarding Alabama charter schools with which they
are involved, when seeking approval for applications submitted regarding other proposed charter
schools before the governmental agencies of other states. In any event, these Defendants’ belief in
“community support” for the school does not mean that there will be no opposition to such a school,
particularly in situations like this one, where community support has suffered an ongoing campaign
to poison the atmosphere against Defendants. As stated before, Plaintiffs’ concerns about those
statements should be raised in Texas, before the governmental agency to whom the testimony was
DOCUMENT 41

made. Tellingly, Plaintiffs do not attempt to, nor can they, base any cause of action on such
statements in their Complaint.
¶ 44. “Instead, Defendant Tarim intentionally misled the T.E.A. by falsely accusing
only Washington County public school teachers of opposing his charter school,
when in fact, he faced opposition from a broad spectrum of concerned
taxpaying Washington County Citizens.”
See Commentary to ¶¶ 34-39 and 43. Defendant Tarim’s characterization of the opposition
was based on his own observations, and the absence of any letters opposing the school from anyone
other than some teachers, rather than students or their parents.
¶ 45. “He openly made these false representations and misleading omissions
regarding Alabama schools while advocating for the T.E.A.’s approval of his
Texas charter school application.”
See commentary on ¶¶ 34-39, 43 and 44.
¶ 46. “He also openly made these false representations and misleading omissions
while having a personal financial stake in Woodland Prep in Alabama, Royal
Public Schools in Texas, and other charter schools in Alabama and across the
United States.”
See commentary on ¶¶ 34-39, 43 and 44. These Defendants are not ashamed of, but have
every right to, their “financial stake” in the success of the charter schools for which they provide
education services, just as the individual Plaintiffs have, or ought to have, in the success of the
schools for which they teach and draw a paycheck. However, Plaintiffs’ allegations attempt to
portray these Defendants in a false light, suggesting that their financial stake in these schools
overrides and diminishes their interest in providing quality educational services to students in
Washington County and elsewhere.
DOCUMENT 41

¶ 47. “Further, when asked by the T.E.A. if his ‘vision’ is in Texas right now and
whether he was going to get Royal Public Schools started and then go off
somewhere else, Defendant Tarim responded that Texas is his home.”
See commentary on ¶¶ 34-39, 43 and 44.
¶ 48. “Defendant Tarim made these representations to convince the T.E.A. that his
allegiance is to the successful start-up and operation of the Royal Public Schools
charter school network in the State of Texas, not to Woodland Prep in
Alabama.”
See commentary on ¶¶ 34-39, 43 and 44. This allegation is not only untrue, but is
inappropriately misleading, in that the T.E.A. did not approve the application for Royal Public
Schools, so that these Defendants’ time is not divided in respect to those schools. Plaintiffs’ attempt
to portray these Defendants as either untrustworthy or disloyal, and not in relation to any legitimate
claim involved in this suit, improper and due to be stricken.
¶ 49. “Notably, Defendant Tarim intentionally failed to disclose to the T.E.A. his true
degree of involvement with Woodland Prep.”
See commentary on ¶¶ 34-39, 43, 44 and 48.
¶ 50. “Defendant Tarim intentionally failed to disclose to the T.E.A. that he was an
is actively representing Woodland Prep before the Alabama Public Charter
School Commission.”
¶ 51. “He intentionally failed to disclose to the T.E.A. that he has been intricately and
actively involved in establishing and advocating for Woodland Prep since at
least March 2018.”
DOCUMENT 41

¶ 52. “Moreover, Defendant Tarim intentionally failed to disclose to the T.E.A.
duringhis May 23, 2019 Royal PublicSchools charterapplication interview that
he was and is intricately involved with more than one Alabama charter school
applicant.”
¶ 53. “Instead, Defendant Tarim intentionally, falsely and deceptively minimized his
degree of involvement with Woodland Prep and in Alabama charter schools as
a whole.”
¶ 54. “TheT.E.A.ultimately rejected DefendantTarim’s application to open multiple
charter schools in Austin, Texas.”
¶ 55. “Prior to the T.E.A.’s rejection of Defendant Tarim’s charter school
application...”
See commentary on ¶¶ 34-39, 43, 44 and 48, as to this portion of ¶ 55 only.
¶ 57. “Defendant Tarim’s participation in the Commission meetings created the
appearance that he was and is the primary agent of Woodland Prep, despite his
false and misleading representations to the T.E.A. that his involvement with
Woodland Prep was only as a consultant.”
See commentary on ¶¶ 34-39, 43, 44 and 48. These Defendants acted at all times as
Woodland Prep’s education services provider, and in that capacity took all actions it did on behalf
of the remaining Defendants; the two are not inconsistent, and there is no cause of action emanating
from these or any of the allegations contained in Section 2 of the Facts Section of the Complaint. For
DOCUMENT 41

this reason, this and the foregoing delineated paragraphs of the Complaint should be stricken from
the record in these proceedings.
¶ 72. “Defendant Tarim, through Defendant Unity School Services, intends to charge
Defendant WCSF a 15% management fee to operate Woodland Prep. Thus,
before a light is turned on at Woodland Prep, before a pencil is bought, and
before a teacher is paid, Defendant Tarim will receive 15% of the taxpayer
funding for Woodland Prep off the top.”
See Commentary on ¶ 46. This inflammatory rhetoric is offered for the sole purpose of
manufacturingnegativepublicityagainst theseDefendants. The“offthetop”reference, in particular,
is untrue and portrays these Defendants in a negative light, and misleads and confuses the
uninitiated, who do not understand the workings of public charter schools versus ordinary public
schools. Plaintiff’s allegation is in no respect material or probative to any claim, but is simply to
smear and debase these Defendants’ reputations in the community and in the State of Alabama at
large.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, these Defendants respectfully request that the
foregoing delineated portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint be stricken from the record in that they are
contrary to Rule 12(f) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, and are meant to harass Defendants,
delay progress in opening Woodland Prep, mislead and confuse the public and generally reduce the
reputation of Defendants in Washington County and the State of Alabama at large.
Respectfully submitted on this 9th
day of September, 2019.
/s/ William H. Webster
William H. Webster
Attorney for Defendants
Soner Tarim and Unity School Services, LLC
DOCUMENT 41

OF COUNSEL:
WEBSTER, HENRY, BRADWELL,
COHAN, SPEAGLE & DESHAZO, P.C.
105 Tallapoosa Street, Suite 101
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
Tel: 334-264-9472
Fax: 334-264-9599
will@websterhenry.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing on all counsel of record as listed
below by electronic filing or by placing a copy thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid,
on this 9 September 2019.
Thomas M. Loper
Loper Law, LLC
452 Government Street, Suite E
Mobile, AL 36602-2320
Clinton M. Daughtrey
Victoria D. Relf
Alabama Education Association
P.O. Box 4177
Montgomery, AL 36103-4177
M. Jansen Voss
Michael A. Vercher
David L. Faulkner, Jr.
Christian & Small, LLP
505 North 20th
Street, Suite 1800
Birmingham, AL 35203
DOCUMENT 41

Washington County Wilson vs. Soner Tarim Unity School Services Response #Gulen #WoodlandPreparatory

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Washington County Wilson vs. Soner Tarim Unity School Services Response #Gulen #WoodlandPreparatory

Similar to Washington County Wilson vs. Soner Tarim Unity School Services Response #Gulen #WoodlandPreparatory (20)

More from Gulen Cemaat

More from Gulen Cemaat (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Washington County Wilson vs. Soner Tarim Unity School Services Response #Gulen #WoodlandPreparatory