The owner of the now-closed Pomp Boys Motors has filed a complaint in the federal court of the Eastern District of North Carolina charging that three officers within the Roanoke Rapids Police Department exercised “extreme misconduct” which contributed to the demise of the business.
The lawsuit filed Friday on behalf of Vivian Pompliano charges that through a repeated pattern of harassment, threats and eventually false criminal charges, the intent of the officers was to protect the financial interests of local mechanics and car shop owners through retaliation for the plaintiff’s constitutionally protected speech and actions.
Named as defendants in the lawsuit are the city of Roanoke Rapids; officers Jamie Lee Hardy, Antonio Seward, and Jayme Shelburne in their individual and official capacities; Vickie Evans, Dennis Harvey, and Rose Beacham in their individual capacities; and L&R Motor Company.
Hardy was terminated in April of last year along with former Chief Bobby Martin. Martin has filed a lawsuit against the city regarding his termination. He was not named in the Pomp Boys complaint.
Seward and Shelburne are still employed with the department.
Chief Shane Guyant, who was not employed by the city during the events described in the lawsuit, had no comment this morning.
Hardy this morning said, “Everybody has a right to do that so we will see what happens in court.”
Roanoke Rapids City Attorney Geoffrey Davis said this morning, “I'm not in a position to comment on the lawsuit involving Pomp Boys due to a conflict — I previously represented the plaintiff in a civil matter, and of course, I currently represent the city of Roanoke Rapids. Both parties have been made aware of this, and as such I want to make it clear that I will not have any involvement in the Pomp Boys lawsuit on either side.”
He said, however, “This does not affect my representation of the city on any other matters, including the pending claim filed in state court by Mr. Martin. There is no connection between the two.”
With respect to the Pomp Boys lawsuit, Davis said the city hasn't been served yet, but staff already has a copy and has already notified its insurance carrier. “They will assign an attorney to represent the city's interests, who may have further comment once that process is completed.”
On Monday the case was assigned to United States District Judge Terrence W. Boyle, according to court records.
Tactics by officers
“Shortly after Pomp Boys opened, the defendant officers told Ms. Pompliano that her business was a threat to other local businesses and that if she did not voluntarily leave town, the officers would shut her down,” the complaint says. “When Ms. Pompliano stood her ground, the Roanoke Rapids Police Department initiated a campaign to make good on their threat.”
Among other tactics, the complaint says, the officers:
Repeatedly showed up unannounced at Pomp Boys and blocked the entrance to the business with their squad cars
Encouraged and recruited customers to make false civil allegations and complaints against Pomp Boys
Distributed a flier about a civil lawyer who would bring a free lawsuit against Pomp Boys
Assisted and encouraged customers to trespass and damage Pomp Boys’ property
Recruited individuals to bring false criminal charges against Ms. Pompliano
“After initiating the wrongful criminal charges, the officers continued to spread false information about Pomp Boys in the media to deter future business and force Pomp Boys to close,” the complaint says. “Eventually, the officers were successful. Amidst the false charges and false allegations, Pomp Boys was forced to shutter its Roanoke Rapids location and suffered extensive financial loss as a result.”
Formed in 2019
According to the complaint, Pomp Boys is a female-owned business formed in 2019 that was to be a legacy business for Ms. Pompliano’s family who are generational car enthusiasts. Pomp Boys opened its first location in Roanoke Rapids and specialized in providing custom modifications and restoration for classic vehicles. “Pomp Boys spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on renovations to its Roanoke Rapids location and advertising,” the complaint says. “The company also utilized innovative marketing strategies such as hosting a regular cars and coffee event where customers and enthusiasts could mingle; regular luncheons where customers could freely discuss their interests and questions with Pomp Boys’ expert staff; and a nationwide advertising campaign.”
The company’s earliest days saw great success. “The company attracted business from car enthusiasts around the country who would ship their classic cars to Pomp Boys for specialized services. Pomp Boys also provided specialized as well as general services to a growing local customer base.”
RRPD officers systematically harass plaintiffs
Pomp Boys’ success and aggressive marketing campaign posed a threat to area mechanics and car shops, the complaint says.
A neighboring shop which specialized in audio services had been using the Pomp Boys parking lot without any restrictions for years. “When Pomp Boys opened, however, Ms. Pompliano requested that (the company) either stop using the parking lot, which Pomp Boys needed for its own commercial purposes, or begin paying rent in exchange for its use. Just as threatening to (the company) was that Pomp Boys also started to provide high-end audio service repair and installation.”
The document says that as Pomp Boys’ customer base began to grow, the customer base of area competitors began to shrink. “Rather than innovate themselves, these area competitors began complaining openly, in particular to the police.”
The complaints — “involving lawful competition and having nothing to do with criminal conduct” — were made to the officers named in the lawsuit. “And these officers took it upon themselves to address these complaints because, upon information and belief, Officer Hardy had close personal relationships with some of the threatened business owners.”
As a result, the complaint says that Hardy, Seward and Shelburne began regularly visiting Pomp Boys and harassing and threatening Ms. Pompliano and her staff at the Roanoke Rapids location. “The officers would do so while in uniform and acting as official officers of the RRPD. During one of the earliest visits, Officer Hardy specifically mentioned his concern for (the neighboring business) stating that Ms. Pompliano should ‘make other plans and move her business elsewhere.’”
The complaint continues, charging that, “While on duty and acting in his official capacity as an RRPD police officer, Officer Hardy often became furious when Ms. Pompliano refused to (yield) to his instructions, telling her he would ‘get her.’”
During one of Seward’s visits to Pomp Boys, Ms. Pompliano asked him to lower his voice so customers would not hear him, at which point he screamed louder, “‘It’s our shop when we’re in here.’”
When Ms. Pompliano continued to stand her ground and complained about the police behavior to city officials including the chief of police, “Officers Hardy, Seward, Shelburne retaliated by systematically harassing Ms. Pompliano and her staff and escalating their efforts to disrupt Ms. Pompliano’s business.”
As the alleged harassment was ongoing, Pomp Boys was working directly with the DMV to enforce liens against customers with outstanding bills for unpaid work or storage.
The RRPD officers — who also worked closely with the DMV — tried to leverage these civil disputes over fees for unpaid work and storage by encouraging lienees to make criminal allegations against Ms. Pompliano.
“Eventually, the officers went as far as initiating false criminal charges against Ms. Pompliano based on pending civil disputes over unpaid fees and mechanic’s liens,” the complaint says.
These efforts to harass and force the closure of Pomp Boys, according to the complaint, included, but were not limited to, the following:
Actively soliciting customers of Pomp Boys to file unfounded criminal and civil complaints
Passing out a flier specifically referring former Pomp Boys customers to a civil lawyer for Pomp Boys incidents for free The flier also included a link for filing an NCDOJ Civil Complaint and an RRPD contact for criminal complaints.
Encouraging and/or permitting Pomp Boys’ customers to trespass upon its property and take back vehicles for which services had not been paid, all despite Pomp Boys’ lawful mechanics lien on these same vehicles.
Failing to respond to Ms. Pompliano’s requests that RRPD prevent and arrest those persons who were trespassing upon Pomp Boys’ property.
Repeating false statements to the local media pertaining to alleged fictitious crimes in order to demean Pomp Boys and Ms. Pompliano.
Providing legal advice and counseling Pomp Boys’ customers to sue Pomp Boys.
Staying on Pomp Boys’ property and blocking the main entrance to the shop for hours despite being repeatedly asked to leave and refusing.
False criminal charges against Pompliano
“In a culmination of their effort to push Pomp Boys out of Roanoke Rapids, Officers Hardy, Seward and Shelburne conspired to bring criminal charges against Ms. Pompliano,” the complaint says. “The officers wrongfully charged Ms. Pompliano with numerous counts of exploitation of an elderly adult and a single count of obtaining property by false pretenses.”
The lawsuit says these charges all stemmed from the civil disputes between Pomp Boys and a few customers related to unpaid bills from work completed or storage fees owed.”
In each instance, Pomp Boys attempted to contact the customers involved and come to a mutual resolution over the unpaid fees.
However, if customers abandoned or left their vehicles at Pomp Boys after receiving notice that work was completed — or refused to pay for work done — Pomp Boys had no option for legal recourse but to use the mechanic’s lien statute to remove the vehicle from their property and recover fees for unpaid work or storage.
“On each occasion, Pomp Boys worked under the guidance and at the instruction of the DMV and complied with the requirements of the mechanic lien statute,” according to the complaint. “Officers Hardy, Seward and Shelburne learned of these civil disputes and recruited or encouraged Pomp Boys customers to seek criminal charges against plaintiffs.”
The complaint notes that the officers were aware of the statutory mandates of the mechanic’s lien statute, that Pomp Boys was required to follow the statutory terms to enforce a lien or remove an abandoned vehicle from its property, and that Pomp Boys worked directly with the DMV and received instructions from the DMV on when to initiate the lien and sale process.
The officers were also aware, the lawsuit notes, that Pomp Boys also had contractual agreements with each customer obligating the customer to pay the estimated costs for service as well as $35 per day in storage fees — which would begin to accumulate only upon notice that the service was complete, and the car was ready for pickup. “Officers Hardy, Seward and Shelburne were aware that each of the alleged victims were represented in the civil dispute by legal counsel who had negotiated or was attempting to negotiate a resolution of the lien or fees charged,” the document says.
In May and June of 2022, however, the officers “conspired to initiate charges against Ms. Pompliano for exploitation of the elderly by deception and intimidation and obtaining property by false pretenses.”
The alleged victims of these false charges were the three non-police defendants named in the lawsuit — Evans, Beachem, and Harvey.
Evans
Evans’ husband brought his vehicle for service at Pomp Boys. After the work was completed, Mr. Evans offered to sell his vehicle to Pomp Boys but asked to leave the car at the shop until he could return with the title.
Mr. Evans was informed that storing his vehicle would cost $35 a day.
This information is also posted at Pomp Boys’ facility and on Mr. Evans’ invoice.
Mr. Evans knew of, and agreed to, these costs. “For the next several months, Mr. Evans was in and out of the hospital, but requested that Pomp Boys keep storing his vehicle, that he was not abandoning it, and he would return with the title.”
In January 2022, Ms. Evans called Ms. Pompliano to tell her that Mr. Evans had passed away. She told Ms. Pompliano that she was going to come to pick up her husband’s vehicle.
However, she refused to pay the outstanding bill for storage fees.
Moreover, Ms. Evans was not the lawful owner of and did not have title of the vehicle. Under instruction from the DMV, Pomp Boys initiated the lien and sale process — the only available legal recourse to remove the vehicle and collect the fees owed.
Ms. Evans was represented by legal counsel in this dispute.
Harvey
Harvey took his vehicle to Pomp Boys and agreed to pay an estimated amount to service his vehicle and for any accumulated storage fees.
Harvey was notified the work on his vehicle was complete but he was unable to pay the cost for service.
Harvey began to accrue storage fees and contacted the DMV who attempted to negotiate a resolution.
Pomp Boys agreed to waive all storage fees if Harvey would pay the cost for service.
Harvey refused.
Pomp Boys, at the advice and instruction from the DMV, initiated the lien and sale process — again, its only recourse.
Harvey was represented by counsel for the lien dispute.
Beacham
Beachem brought her car for service at Pomp Boys.
Pomp Boys completed the work on her vehicle, but Beachem, with the assistance of legal counsel, contested the amount of the bill.
Staff of L&R Motor Company inspected the vehicle and contested the work done.
Pomp Boys agreed to a reduced fee for work completed, and at the advice of her counsel, Beachem signed and paid Pomp Boys’ invoice, and received her vehicle.
Officers aware
“Officers Hardy, Seward and Shelburne knew in each instance that the allegations made by Pomp Boys customers were either fabricated or did not meet the elements of the charges brought for criminal prosecution,” the complaint says. “Officers Hardy, Seward and Shelburne were aware that Pomp Boys had initiated the constitutionally and statutorily mandated mechanic’s lien process to recover unpaid fees for work or storage against the alleged victims.”
The complaint also says the officers were aware that Pomp Boys had not used deception, intimidation or made any false representations to deceive its customers—and that each of these alleged victims were represented by legal counsel in the civil disputes over the mechanic’s liens.
Despite this, the complaint says, the officers chose to bring these baseless charges against Pompliano.
Forced to close
On May 26, 2022, Hardy sought and received a warrant for the arrest of Pompliano based on the allegations related to the mechanic’s lien dispute with Evans.
That same day Pompliano was arrested by Hardy, which the complaint notes was covered in rrspin.com
Ten days later, Pompliano was again charged and arrested based on the allegations related to the mechanic’s lien disputes with Beachem and Harvey.
“These charges led to additional newspaper and television coverage circulating the false charges and accusations against Ms. Pompliano,” the complaint says. “Customers almost immediately stopped coming for service at Pomp Boys. The criminal charges led to a drastic drop in business and revenue.”
The complaint says that Pompliano and her husband, Anthony, both suffered extreme stress and anxiety from these incidents.
By the end of 2022, Pomp Boys was forced to effectively close its flagship Roanoke Rapids location and cease all plans for national expansion.
All charges dismissed
In 2023, a special prosecutor was appointed to review and prosecute the charges against Pompliano.
On March 8 of this year, after reviewing the evidence collected by the RRPD, and learning the full nature of the allegations and their relation to the civil mechanic’s lien disputes, the prosecutor dismissed all criminal charges against Pompliano. “In each dismissal memorandum, the prosecutor wrote that the ‘totality of the evidence in this case is legally insufficient to proceed with criminal charges.’”
Claims for relief
While the lawsuit, which demands a jury trial, does not spell out specific monetary damages, the claims for relief are as follows:
Prosecution without probable cause and fabrication of false evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment
Retaliatory arrest in violation of the First Amendment
Tortious interference with contract under North Carolina Common Law
Violation of Article 1-19 of the North Carolina Constitution
Violation of the North Carolina Constitution dealing with selective enforcement
Common law negligence
Civil conspiracy against the RRPD defendants, Evans, Harvey, Beacham and L&R
Respondeat superior — committing a wrongful act while within the scope of employment
Indemnification — compensation for harm or loss
