REMY MACEO-SAUNDERS d/b/a MACEO-REMYPLAINTIFF VS DAVID OPPERMANDEFENDANTCivil Action-Law  Trial Court No. 17-16456  Trial-by-jury Tenant-Landlord Claim, Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, Self-help eviction, USC 42 Sec 1983, Interference with commercial activity, Harm to person, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Trespass, Assumpsit, Theft of Property 

Plaintiff REMY MACEO SAUNDERS (“Plaintiff”), pro se, brings and hereby submits this complaint against Defendant DAVID OPPERMAN (“Defendant”), and in support thereof, aver as follows:


The PLAINTIFF demands a jury trial for being prejudiced by multiple tortious and harmful acts by DAVID OPPERMAN. PLAINTIFF engaged in a contract with DAVID OPPERMAN to lease space for commercial and private use with DAVID OPPERMAN. DAVID OPPERMAN willfully violated said contract, Pennsylvania statute via executing a self-help eviction and removing all commercial and private items of PLAINTIFF. DAVID OPPERMANS actions resulting in the loss of all of MACEO REMY business material items, harm to his person and harm to his offspring, interference with known commercial activity, being intimidated et. al. DAVID OPPERMAN achieved in seizing property from PLAINTIFF by engaging in self-help eviction, misleading public officers to trespass and remove moving PLAITNIFF’s property, intimidation of the PLAINTIFF. The PLAINTIFF makes claims under multiple sections of the Unfair Trade Practices, Consumer Protection Law of Pennsylvania et al. PLAINTIFF has been prejudiced by recently receiving unreasonable denial of service by County of Berks Prothonotary to file initiating WRIT OF SERVICE for this matter.

 PLAINTIFF lost all of his business equipment, inventory for manufacturing products, personal possessions, family heirlooms, possessions of belonging to MOVING PLAINTIFF’s offspring, ability to participate in his chosen trade, loss of home, loss of reputation and suffered severe mental and emotional damage and resulting in loss of home for PLAINTIFF.


  1. Plaintiff Remy Maceo Saunders is a resident the Republic of Haiti and foreign national residing within the County of Berks in the state of Pennsylvania. Plaintif Remy Maceo Sunders operates a business by the name MACEO-REMY.
  2. Defendant David Opperman is a resident the Republic of Haiti and foreign national residing within the County of Berks in the state of Pennsylvania


  1. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
  2. Venue in this Court is proper because, inter alia, Defendant is citizen of the state of Pennsylvania  and the events occurred within the boundaris of the state of Pennsylvania.


  • Sometimes in August 2016, PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT commenced negotiating lease to engage his commercial activities.
  • The business owned by the PLAINTIFF at the time of occupying the space was a registered disadvantaged entity with the US Government, Pentagon and Navy.
  • PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT agreed to engage in a long-term lease consisting of a three (3) year term, which was counter to initial terms and wishes presented for a one (1) year lease by PLAINTIFF.
  • As part of the agreement, the parties agreed to specific terms to counter risk of long-term lease at a new location and a new business. Those terms were (a) payments for the lease commenced only after 30 days from the acquisition of all legal binding permits both Federal and State of Pennsylvania. (b) it was verbally acknowledged by DEFENDANT that a Federal Firearms License could take six (6) months to receive even if all went well. 
  • PLAINTIFF presented in writing and DEFENDANT agreed to the clause requiring rent payment being due only after acquisition of all permits was the only reason PLAINTIFF would consider to execute a three (3) year lease. The location may for reasons and events un-known at time of execution of contract, may not be feasible for permits required to engage in business and one (1) year was all PLAINTIFF would commit to, unless clause of rent being due 30 days after the acquisition of all business permits was agreed to.
  • On September 23rd, 2016 the parties greed and executed the lease agreement with DEFENDANT receiving first-months-rent and security-deposit from PLAINTIFF. All parties came to multiple subsequent-agreements at the-lease-execution. After lease-execution DEFENDANT and PLAINTIFF, over a period of four (4) months came to multiple verbal subsequent agreements which PLAINTIFF acted on.
  • Sometimes in September 2016, the PLAINTIFF lawfully took possession of the property that was the subject of the lease agreement.
  • Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the PLAINTIFF proceeded to apply for issuance of the requisite licenses.
  • Through no fault of PLAINTIFF, permit acquisition time was delayed and DEFENDANT was notified of the same on October 24, 2016.
  • PLAINTIFF was required to obtain Federal Firearms License Permit, a City of Reading business permit and a county permit.
  • Sometimes in November 2016, the PLAINTIFF began to reside within the leased property and the DEFENDANT knowing this fact visited PLAINTIFF at the location multiple times.
  • DEFENDANT acknowledged notice of expected delays in acquisition of lease from PLAINTIFF in October and had continued notification multiple times between October 2016 and April 2017. 
  • MACEO-REMY’s commercial activity at the location was primarily retail sales and manufacturing ammunition products, manufactured at location firearms, law-enforcement supplies,  firearms accessories installation and marketing off location training for above clients as well as development agricultural manufacturing projects utilizing hops.
  • Sometimes in April 9, 2017 through April 10, 2017, the DEFENDANT executed a self-help-eviction without evidence of a writ-of-possession at the time of DEFENDANT self-help-eviction. The DEFENDANTs actions led to the disappearance of all of PLAINTIFF’s commercial-equipment, commercial-inventory, complete cessation of his commercial-activity at, rejection of credit commercial credit applications, slander, and discarding of all Remy’s personal possessions. A lease-contract and multiple subsequent agreements were executed between PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANTs.
  • According to the lease agreement, Clause-23 titled: Additional-Provisions stating that first payment of rent was due 30 days after the acquisition of ALL business permits.
  • Further, Clause-23 mentioned a timeline. However, time taken to acquire the federal permit was not in the control of PLAINTIFF hence he could not be held responsible for non-performance of the agreement. Usually, such a license requires around six-months for the federal government to deliver. 
  • PLAINTIFF consistently updated the DEFENDANT via phone, in person and email as to the timeline for acquisition and DEFENDANT acknowledged that the delays were no fault of PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT agreed to wait for permits according to lease and subsequent agreement.
  • During the delay in federal permitting process PLAINTIFF notified the DEFENDANTs his intention acquire employment separate from commercial activities at location to expedite payment of rent to DEFENDANT and acquired employment in March 2017. to beginning of April 2017.
  • DEFENDANTs had knowledge of the value of PLAINTIFF commercial equipment and value equipment-utilization for ammunition production at PLAINTIFF lease space.
  •  The PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT mutually explored engaging each other for investment by DEFENDANT in MACEO-REMY commercial-activity at location in February and March of 2017
  • MACEO REMY presented a business prospectus to the DEFENDANT for DEFENDANT’S investment which illustrated in detail the private usage tactics of MACEO REMY equipment and resulting profit of those business usage tactics by email and a hard copy to DEFENDANT. 
  • DEFENDANT verbally stated he would invest $50,000 to MACEO-REMY and DEFENDANT verbally stated to PLAINTIFF a minimum of $50,000.00 United States Dollars would be the appropriate minimum financial investment needed according to his research.
  • The business prospectus communicated the existing equipment the company would earn $500,000-gross-revenue-annually profiting 40% or approximately profiting-$200,000 or more annually.
  • Business prospectus did not include other services being offered by PLAINTIFF such as safety-tactical arms training courses, trauma-medical-training courses, government contracts for the supply of ammunition and firearms and development of firearms accessory products. DEFENDANT had complete knowledge of the business revenue potential from PLAINTIFF’s business.
  • Without giving any prior notice, DEFENDANT with help of Craig Barker executed a self-help eviction on the night of April 9, 2017 by changing the locks on the residence and commercial space belonging to PLAINTIFF sometime after 6PM while
  • PLAINTIFF upon returning from work discovered the changed locks upon returning from work at approximately midnight April 10, 2017.
  • PLAINTIFF called the DEFENDANT immediately after discovering the changed lock April 10, 2017 and sent a message to the DEFENDANT’S phone requesting access to his residence and business, and called again the following morning being told by DEFENDANT’S secretary that he would only allow PLAINTIFF to arrange a time to retrieve some clothes and few personal items.
  •  The time arranged was approximately April 10th, 2017 at 9AM. PLAINTIFF took video footage of the location central room with some equipment for record and retrieved items being escorted by DEFENDANT and Craig Barker through the location.
  • PLAINTIFF engaged a business associate Dwight West of  Boston Group Co-LLC (BGC) to participate in of the financing of PLAINTIFF commercial activities due to negative effect of controversy on commercial-activity.
  •  Dwight West witnessed all communication via email with DEFENDANTs and began to negotiate with DEFENDANT’S secretary and DEFENDANT during and after the self-help eviction for access to residence and business.
  • PLAINTIFF and Dwight West repeatedly attempted to engage DEFENDANTs for a solution and DEFENDANT refused to negotiate directly with PLAINTIFF and communications with Dwight West on most occasions by DEFENDANT and secretary were belligerent.
  • Secretary at one time had to leave conversation to acquire alcohol for DEFENDANT. PLAINTIFF and Dwight West notified DEFENDANTs of existing liens on some equipment.
  • DEFENDANT was belligerent with PLAINTIFF causing plaintiff to utilize Dwight West for communication.
  • Sometimes in June 2017 PLAINTIFF filed for emergency relief in County of Berks Court of Common Pleas and was granted relief by ORDER and DECREE docket number. 17-16456 from the court.
  • Several constables were contacted to execute the order of relief by the court. At least one constable-service refused to engage the job of retrieval of items after becoming aware of who the DEFENDANT was and speaking with him.
  • DEFENDANT is a successful land excavation entrepreneur owner of Opperman-Excavating-Inc.
  • DEFENDANT filed a police report stating that PLAINTIFF’s unit had been broken into and property was stolen.
  • DEFENDANT did not notify PLAINTIFF of the alleged break in and when DEFENDANT discarded remainder of PLAINTIFF’s possessions.
  • The DEFENDANT filed the report of theft and met the police at 630 S 9th St Reading PA in the morning and entered PLAINTIFF unit and proceeded to throw out remaining items that DEFENDANT claimed to police were stolen.
  • There is a police report on this event.
  • During May 2017 and after PLAINTIFF and Dwight West continued to contact DEFENDANT to resolve the matter.
  • DEFENDANT never notified PLAINTIFF or Dwight West of alleged theft of equipment, inventory, police report and then throwing out remaining property of PLAINTIFF.
  • PLAINTIFF learned of property allegedly being stolen and remainder discarded to trash after filing for and being granted emergency relief in county of Berks Court of Common pleas to obtain his property from location.
  • DEFENDANT had received several calls during and after the alleged theft of property from PLAINTIFF and did not communicate situation to PLAINTIFF. This shows knowledge, malice.
  • Police witnessed DEFENDANT remove items from property and then proceed to throw items in trash and the Reading-Police-officer who created the police report of David Opperman’s call confirmed this fact speaking directly to PLAINTIFF at Reading-City-Hall.
  • PLAINTIFF obtained constable-services and attempted to inspect location with witnesses where Opperman again claimed PLAINTIFF space was empty. The constable refused to allow PLAINTIFF in property to inspect for items until he paid him in advance a violation of Pennsylvania law.
  • Specific action was taken by PLAINTIFF regarding subsequent verbal agreements with DEFENDANT. Specifically, PLAINTIFF agreed to and then engaged in work to earn revenue to pay for rent before all permits for commercial activity were acquired.
  • DEFENDANTs presented a document stating an amount that was possibly owed by PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF did not agree to any terms or accept-for-value the document and its contents which PLAINTIFF stated were not included in lease-contract or any subsequent agreements.
  • PLAINTIFF was eventually denied several working capital credit opportunities ranging up to $75,000 from $10,000 for ammunition manufacturing.
  • These working capital loans would have been utilized for inventory and manufactured and sold bi-weekly at 40% minimum profit margin.
  • This rate of manufacturing and profit would earn PLAINTIFF reasonably between $200,000 to $400,000 per year for ammunition with existing equipment.
  • Loans would be utilized to acquire new equipment and increase automation of that equipment with mechanical drives to create greater production increasing profit.
  • Because of the fact PLAINTIFF could gain access to his equipment and lease-space for lenders to review equipment for their due-diligence, PLAINTIFF was denied the loan.
  • PLAINTIFF was being blocked from creating commercial activity and revenue due to his equipment being in the possession of DEFENDANT.


  • DEFENDANT willfully and knowingly wrongfully denied the PLAINTIFF access to the property.
  • DEFENDANT willfully and knowingly wrongfully caused the PLAINTIFF to be evicted from the premises without prior service of Writ-of-Possession and/or an Alias-Writ-of-Possession.
  • DEFENDANT failed by law to give any prior notice to the parties to collect and gather their belongings prior to disposing of the same.
  • DEFENDANT intentionally caused loss of income at the expense of the PLAINTIFF.
  • DEFENDANT caused loss of investment by denying PLAINTIFF access to the business thereby causing the PLAINTIFF to lose out on a loan facility.



  • DEFENDANT willingly entered into a lease agreement acknowledging and accepting all the terms and conditions as set forth.
  • DEFENDANT agreed to collect monthly rent upon the PLAINTIFF obtaining all licenses required to operate the business on the leased premises.
  • DEFENDANT without prior notice to the PLAINTIFF proceeded to obtain writ of possession and restrict the PLAINTIFF’s access to the leased property.
  • DEFENDANT knowingly and intentionally breached the terms of the agreement entered into with the PLAINTIFF.
  • The PLAINTIFF has suffered serious injury and loss as a result of the DEFENDANT’s malicious action to evict the PLAINTIFF without proper notice.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:

  1. For an award of damages in the amount of $900,000 based time of changed locks by DEFENDANT, loss of PLAINTIFF’s existing equipment, reasonably expected acquisition of automation equipment, inventory turnover, United-States-government contract acquisition and additional training courses and business.
  2. For an award of compensatory damages for costs associated with wrongful eviction as shall be established by proof at time of trial;
  3. For an award of consequential damages for costs associated with breach of contract as shall be established by proof at time of trial;
  4. For emotional distress damages as shall be established by proof at time of trial;
  5. For an award based upon loss of property as shall be established by proof at time of trial;
  6. For exemplary and/or punitive damages;
  7. For treble damages;
  8. For interest, expenses and costs of suit to the extent permitted by law; and
  9. Any other relief the Court may deem just and proper;


Remy, Maceo Saunders dba


All rights reserved

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )