Benjamin D.

Johnson (10275)
BENNETT TUELLER JOHNSON & DEERE
3165 East Millrock Drive, Suite 500
Salt Lake City, Utah 84121
Telephone: (801) 438-2000
Facsimile: (801) 438-2050
E-mail: ben.johnson@btjd.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF UTAH COUNTY

STATE OF UTAH

*******

ARTHUR F. JEPPERSON, ) COMPLAINT

)
Plaintiff, ) Tier 3
)
vs. ) [Jury Trial Demanded]
)
DUSTIN HARROW, an individual; ) Case No.
CHRISTIE HARROW, an individual; and )
BRAD CAMPBELL, an individual; ) Judge
)
Defendants. )

*******

Arthur F. Jepperson, by and through counsel, hereby files this Complaint against

Defendants and alleges and avers as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Arthur F. Jepperson (“Jepperson”) is an individual residing in Utah

County, Utah.

2. Defendant Dustin Harrow is an individual residing in Utah County, Utah.

1
 3. Defendant Christie Harrow is an individual residing in Utah County, Utah.

4. Defendant Brad Campbell (“Campbell”) is an individual residing in Utah

County, Utah.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Utah

Code Ann. section 78A-5-102.

6. This Court has personal jurisdiction respecting Defendants because they are

residents of Utah and/or actively doing business in Utah.

7. Venue properly lies in this Court pursuant to Utah Code Ann. section 78B-3-

307.

8. Pursuant to Utah R. Civ. P. 26(c), this is a Tier 3 case.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

9. Dustin Harrow, Jepperson, and Rod Cassity (“Cassity”) are each 1/3 owners

of Elevated Excavation, LLC (“Elevated Excavation”).

10. Elevated Excavation also employed Dustin Harrow to run the day-to-day

operations of the business.

11. Co-Defendant Brad Campbell was a key employee of Elevated Excavation

and worked closely with Dustin Harrow.

12. Jepperson and Cassity placed significant trust in Dustin Harrow in allowing

him to run the daily operations of the business.

2
 13. Beginning in January 2019, Jepperson and Cassity began to have more

involvement and oversight in the financial affairs of Elevated Excavation.

14. They soon discovered they had misplaced their trust in Dustin Harrow, and

that he had misused company funds for his personal benefit.

15. Among other items, Dustin Harrow used company funds to pay for hunting

excursions, family vacations, furniture, food, sewing machines, and other household and

personal expenses.

16. Similarly, it is believed that co-Defendant Campbell used company resources

for his personal benefit, including trade work with customers for his personal residence,

vehicles, fuel, food, and other items.

17. Dustin Harrow wrongly considered the income of Elevated Excavation to be

his own income.

18. Indeed, when challenged with his use and spending of corporate resources, he

stated to Jepperson, Cassity and others—“why does it matter, it’s my money anyways.”

19. Because of Dustin Harrow’s misuse of corporate resources, Harrow’s

employment with Elevated Excavation was terminated on or about June 4, 2019.

20. Jepperson replaced Dustin Harrow and began running the day-to-day business

of Elevated Excavation.

21. Although Dustin Harrow’s employment was terminated, he remained a 1/3

owner in Elevated Excavation and owed fiduciary duties to Elevated Excavation.

3
 22. After his employment was terminated, Dustin Harrow sought to obtain

financing to purchase the interests of Jepperson and Cassity in the business.

23. On or about June 6, 2019, Dustin Harrow informed Jepperson and Cassity

through his counsel that a buyout of their interests in Elevated Excavation would occur

within a matter of days.

24. Dustin Harrow sought to obtain financing from non-party Don Mathews or

related entities.

25. On or about June 10, 2019, Jepperson and Cassity were informed through

Harrow’s counsel that “[t]he plan is to exercise the option to buyout. I talked to the ‘money’

on Friday. He is flying back into Salt Lake today. I don’t know if the money will be here

today or tomorrow.”

26. On or about Wednesday, June 12, 2019 Dustin Harrow through his counsel

claimed he would “have the funds to buy out Art by the end of this week.”

27. On Monday, June 17, 2019, Dustin Harrow continued to assert that a buyout

was imminent and informed Jepperson and Cassity through his counsel that the “[l]ender is

meeting with the parties today to finalize.”

28. On Friday, June 21, 2019, Jepperson and Cassity were informed through

Harrow’s counsel “that money should be finalized for [Jepperson] shortly and that they are

working on the money for [Cassity] now.”

4
 29. Despite representations that a deal was imminent, on or about June 25, 2019

Don Mathews informed counsel for Jepperson and Cassity of his “major concerns” with

funding Dustin Harrow’s purchase of their ownership interests in Elevated Excavation.

30. On or about June 25, 2019, it became clear to Dustin Harrow that he would

be unable to obtain a loan to purchase Jepperson and Cassity’s interests in Elevated

Excavation.

31. Dustin Harrow instead determined to start a new, competing business with

Don Mathews.

32. On June 26, 2019, Dustin Harrow formed Harrow Enterprises, and would

within days form Motus Excavation, LLC (“Motus Excavation”) with Don Mathews.

33. Harrow Enterprise, another business formed by Harrow, was originally listed

as a manager of Motus Excavation.

34. Days later, Dustin Harrow removed himself as the license qualifier for

Elevated Excavation, leaving Elevated without a construction license.

35. Dustin Harrow removed himself as the qualifier for Elevated Excavation’s

license to damage Elevated Excavation’s business.

36. Harrow instead became the qualifier for Motus Excavation.

37. In forming Motus Excavation with Don Mathews, Dustin Harrow began to

compete directly with Elevated Excavation and by so doing breached his fiduciary duties

owed to Elevated Excavation.

5
 38. Dustin Harrow and his wife, Defendant Christie Harrow (collectively the

“Harrows”), who were greatly angered by Dustin Harrow’s termination, began a campaign to

destroy the reputation of Jepperson and ruin the business of Elevated Excavation.

39. On or about the same day Dustin Harrow began to form his new competing

business, June 26, 2019, news reports indicate the Harrows called law enforcement and

alleged that Jepperson had molested their 8-year old son on a deer hunt the prior fall.

40. The Harrows’ allegations that Jepperson molested their 8-year old son are

false.

41. The Harrows’ false report to law enforcement is criminal conduct.

42. The Harrows conspired to destroy the reputation of Jepperson to exact

revenge for Dustin Harrow’s termination and loss of control in Elevated Excavation, which

had funded their lifestyle.

43. The Harrows conspired to destroy the reputation of Jepperson as they also

believed it would hasten the closure of Elevated Excavation and the successful re-boot of a

new business with Don Mathews.

44. The Harrows began telling customers, employees, suppliers, contractors,

vendors, friends, family and community members that Jepperson had molested their 8-year

old son on a deer hunt the prior fall.

45. The Harrows’ allegations are criminal defamation under Utah Code Ann.

section 76-9-404.

6
 46. At Elevated Excavation’s job sites, employees were openly repeating the

rumors they were hearing—that Jepperson “was going down” and that he “would be going

down hard.”

47. The rumors were started by the Harrows and co-Defendant Brad Campbell.

48. The Harrows began to conspire with former employees of Elevated

Excavation—including co-Defendant Campbell—to destroy the business of Elevated

Excavation.

49. Campbell himself had personally benefitted from Dustin Harrow’s misuse of

company funds.

50. Campbell was angered by Dustin Harrow’s termination and immediately took

sides with the Harrows.

51. Campbell solicited employees and customers of Elevated Excavation to leave

and work with Motus Excavation in an effort destroy Elevated Excavation.

52. Campbell currently works for Harrow’s new competing business venture,

Motus Excavation.

53. Campbell actively participated in the Harrows’ conspiracy to destroy Elevated

Excavation and ruin the reputation of Jepperson.

54. Campbell furthered the smear campaign instigated by the Harrows by telling

customers, employees, suppliers, vendors, contractors, friends, family and community

members that Jepperson had molested the Harrows’ 8-year old son on a deer hunt the prior

fall.

7
 55. Defendants’ actions were specifically designed to make Jepperson and

Elevated Excavation pariahs in the business community, and their efforts were successful.

56. The claims against Jepperson were picked up by local media, including KSL,

KUTV, FOX13, KPCW, the Daily Herald, and others.

57. The allegations were spread through social media.

58. The allegations against Jepperson reached Elevated Excavation’s creditors,

and a run began on the business with creditors demanding payment and refusing to extend

additional credit.

59. Elevated Excavation lost work and customers shunned Jepperson because

they were being told he was a child molester.

60. Many of these customers took their business to Dustin Harrow’s new

competing business venture, Motus Excavation.

61. As a result of the Harrows’ vicious defamation, Jepperson’s life has been

turned upside down.

62. He is now viewed with suspicion by friends, family, neighbors, associates and

in his business dealings.

63. News of the allegations against him was spread across the entire state and

surrounding areas.

64. In the digital age, these false allegations will no doubt follow Jepperson

around for the rest of his life.

8
 65. Jepperson’s reputation is in tatters, despite never having been prosecuted for

any crime.

66. On or about March 20, 2020, Dustin Harrow was charged with two felonies

relating to his misuse of company funds.

67. The Harrows’ false claims that Jepperson molested their son was nothing

more than retaliation for Dustin Harrows’ termination and loss of control in Elevated

Excavation.

68. Because of Defendants’ actions, Jepperson suffered severe mental anguish and

became suicidal.

69. Because of Defendants’ action, Elevated Excavation closed down, and

Jepperson lost business opportunities and income.

70. Defendants actions have caused Plaintiff damages in an amount of at least $5

million, for which they are all jointly and severally liable.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(False Light Portrayal— Against all Defendants)

71. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if

fully set forth herein.

72. “A prima facie case for false light requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that (1)

the defendant publicized a matter concerning the plaintiff that placed the plaintiff before the

public in a false light, (2) the false light in which the plaintiff was placed would be highly

offensive to a reasonable person, and (3) the defendant knew or recklessly disregarded the

9
falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the plaintiff was placed.” Jacob v.

Bezzant, 2009 UT 37, ¶ 21, 212 P.3d 535, 544.

73. Defendants in writing and orally publicized to customers, employees,

suppliers, vendors, friends, family, law enforcement and community members that

Jepperson molested the Harrows’ child at a deer hunt.

74. The Harrows made these allegations with the intention that the false

allegations would be spread to the community at large including through the news media and

social media.

75. Defendants’ false allegations were in fact reported by local news media

including KSL, KUTV, FOX13, KPCW, and the Daily Herald.

76. Because of these false allegations Jepperson is now viewed with suspicion by

friends, family, neighbors, associates and the community at large.

77. Defendants have placed Jepperson in a false light, and this false light—that

Jepperson is a child molester—is highly objectionable to any reasonable person.

78. Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the falsity of the allegations against

Jepperson and the false light in which the Jepperson was placed.

79. Defendants intentionally placed Jepperson in a false light, and did so with

malice, to retaliate against Jepperson.

80. Because of Defendants’ actions, Jepperson suffered severe mental anguish and

became suicidal.

10
 81. Because of Defendants’ action, Elevated Excavation closed down, and

Jepperson lost business opportunities and income.

82. Defendants actions have harmed Jepperson, in an amount of no less than $5

million, for which they are jointly and severally liable.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress—Against all Defendants)

83. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if

fully set forth herein.

84. To “state a claim for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, a

plaintiff must plead facts that demonstrate that the defendant intentionally engaged in some

conduct toward the plaintiff, (a) with the purpose of inflicting emotional distress, or, (b)

where any reasonable person would have known that such would result; and his actions are

of such a nature as to be considered outrageous and intolerable in that they offend against

the generally accepted standards of decency and morality.” Oman v. Davis Sch. Dist., 2008 UT

70, ¶ 51, 194 P.3d 956, 969.

85. Defendants were angered by Dustin Harrow’s termination and Dustin

Harrow’s loss of control in Elevated Excavation.

86. In Defendants’ anger, they specifically intended to harm Jepperson, to exact

revenge on Jepperson and to harm the business of Elevated Excavation.

87. Defendants falsely alleged that Jepperson molested the Harrows’ 8-year-old

son, and made the allegations intentionally to exact emotional distress upon Jepperson.

11
 88. Any reasonable person would have known that emotional harm would result

given Defendants’ allegations of molestation.

89. Defendants actions are outrageous and intolerable in that they offend

generally accepted standards of decency and morality.

90. Because of Defendants’ actions, Jepperson suffered severe mental anguish and

became suicidal.

91. Because of Defendants’ action, Elevated Excavation closed down, and

Jepperson lost business opportunities and income.

92. Defendants actions have harmed Jepperson, in an amount of no less than $5

million, for which they are jointly and severally liable.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Defamation—Against all Defendants)

93. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if

fully set forth herein.

94. “A prima facie case for defamation must demonstrate that (1) the defendant

published the statements [in print or orally]; (2) the statements were false; (3) the statements

were not subject to privilege; (4) the statements were published with the requisite degree of

fault; and (5) the statements resulted in damages.” Jacob v. Bezzant, 2009 UT 37, ¶ 21, 212

P.3d 535, 543. (internal quotations omitted)

12
 95. Defendants in print and orally told customers, employees, suppliers, vendors,

friends, family, law enforcement and community members that Jepperson molested the

Harrows’ child at a deer hunt.

96. These statements and allegations are false.

97. These statements and allegations are not subject to any privilege.

98. Defendants published these statements intentionally, or otherwise in a grossly

negligent manner, to ruin the reputation of Jepperson and to ruin the business of Elevated

Excavation.

99. Defendants published these statements with malice or otherwise with gross

negligence, to further Defendants’ own greed, and to exact revenge upon Jepperson.

100. The Harrows’ conduct constitutes criminal defamation.

101. The Harrows filed a false police report, which is also criminal in nature.

102. The Harrows made these allegations with the intention that the false

allegations would be spread to the community at large including through the news media and

social media.

103. Defendants’ false allegations were in fact reported by local news media

including KSL, KUTV, FOX13, KPCW, the Daily Herald and other local media.

104. These statements have greatly damaged the reputation of Jepperson, and

materially harmed the business of Elevated Excavation—exactly as intended by Defendants.

105. Because of Defendants’ actions, Jepperson suffered severe mental anguish and

became suicidal.

13
 106. Because of Defendants’ action, Elevated Excavation closed down, and

Jepperson lost business opportunities and income.

107. Defendants actions have harmed Jepperson, in an amount of no less than $5

million, for which they are jointly and severally liable.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Defamation Per Se—Against all Defendants)

108. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if

fully set forth herein.

109. To constitute defamation per se, the alleged defamatory statement must

address one of the following four factors: (1) The statement pertains to criminal conduct

committed by the plaintiff; (2) The statement imputes a loathsome disease on the plaintiff;

(3) The statement alleges the plaintiff acted incompatibly with the existence of a lawful

business, trade, profession, or office; and (4) The statement imputes unchastity on a woman.

World Wide Ass’n of Specialty Programs v. Pure, Inc., 450 F.3d 1132, 1138 (10th Cir. 2006).

110. Defendants allegations are defamation per se, as they allege serious criminal

conduct by Jepperson or a loathsome disease.

111. Because of Defendants’ actions, Jepperson suffered severe mental anguish and

became suicidal.

112. Because of Defendants’ action, Elevated Excavation closed down, and

Jepperson lost business opportunities and income.

14
 113. Defendants actions have harmed Jepperson, in an amount of no less than $5

million, for which they are jointly and severally liable.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Civil Conspiracy—Against All Defendants)

114. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if

fully set forth herein.

115. “To prove civil conspiracy [in Utah], five elements must be shown: ‘(1) a

combination of two or more persons, (2) an object to be accomplished, (3) a meeting of the

minds on the object or course of action, (4) one or more unlawful, overt acts, and (5)

damages as a proximate result thereof.’” Alta Indus. v. Hurst, 846 P.2d 1282, 1290 n.17 (Utah

1993) (quoting Israel Pagan Estate v. Cannon, 746 P.2d 785, 790 (Utah Ct. App. 1987)); see also

Jackson v. Volvo Trucks N. Am. Inc., 462 F.3d 1234, 1238 (10th Cir. 2006).

116. Only one of the co-conspirators needs to have committed an unlawful act—

also referred to in Utah as an “underlying tort”—in order to hold all co-conspirators

accountable. First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Nw. Title Ins. Agency, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-229-DN, 2016

WL 6956603, at *3 (D. Utah Nov. 27, 2016).

117. Defendants have all combined with the object of ruining the reputation of

Jepperson and destroying the business of Elevated Excavation.

118. Defendants have all placed Jepperson in a false light, intentionally inflicted

emotional distress upon Jepperson, and defamed Jepperson.

119. The Harrows’ conduct is criminal defamation under Utah law.

15
 120. The false police report filed the Harrows’ files is likewise criminal conduct.

121. There was a meeting of the minds of the Defendants to accomplish the goal

of destroying Elevated Excavation’s business and ruining the reputation of Jepperson.

122. Defendants all agreed and set upon the goal of destroying Elevated

Excavation’s business and have been successful in taking Elevated Excavation’s employees

and customers, and in destroying Jepperson’s reputation.

123. Defendants accomplished these goals by making false police reports and by

repeating allegations to customers, employees, suppliers, vendors, friends, family, law

enforcement and community members that Jepperson molested the Harrows’ child.

124. Defendants actions have harmed Jepperson, in an amount of no less than $5

million, for which they are jointly and severally liable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a judgment against the Defendants as follows:

a. For compensatory damages, in an amount to be proven at trial, but estimated

to be $5 million;

b. For punitive damages;

c. For attorney’s fees and costs;

d. For interest; and

e. For such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

16
 JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.

Dated this 15th day of May, 2020.

BENNETT TUELLER JOHNSON & DEERE

/s/ Benjamin D. Johnson

______________________________________
Benjamin D. Johnson
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Plaintiff’s Address:
1210 South 470 West
Wallsburg, Utah 84082

17