IBJNews

Royal Spa owner prevails in suits involving ex-employee

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The co-owner of Indianapolis-based Royal Spa Corp. has prevailed in a year-long legal dispute in which he and a former executive of the company sued one another in separate courts.

Royal Spa CEO Robert Dapper won a judgment of $8,484 against ex-employee Kevin Roessler, and had a complaint and counterclaim against him from Roessler and his wife dismissed.

Court records revealed no details about the dismissals, and lawyers representing both sides declined to comment on the suits.

The dismissals likely put an end to a salacious legal spat that included sexually charged allegations against Dapper and sordid details of the swinging lifestyle of Roessler, according to court papers.

The court battle began in October 2011, when Dapper sued Roessler and his wife, Marcella Roessler, charging that Roessler failed to pay for a spa that he purchased from the store on a payment schedule.

The remaining amount of $8,484, including a $2,000 loan Dapper said he gave Roessler, came due in full upon his departure from the company in March 2011. Roessler had served as Royal Spa’s director of business development since June 2008.

Dapper also named Roessler’s wife in the suit, claiming that the couple threatened to make damaging allegations against Dapper if he did not write Roessler a check.

Dapper won his judgment against the Roesslers in Marion Superior Court in March.

Six months later, on Sept. 10, Dapper also had a counterclaim filed against him by Marcella Roessler dismissed. Her suit claimed that Dapper defamed her by making false and sexually degrading statements about her to a couple interested in buying a hot tub from Royal Spa.

In the meantime, Kevin Roessler charged in federal court that Dapper sexually harassed him and his wife after learning that he had an “open” marriage, court papers said.

After discovering Roessler’s lifestyle, Dapper began to request that Roessler invite him to events where couples shared their sexual partners, according to the suit filed in April. Roessler insists in the complaint that he did not want to combine his personal life with his work and was hesitant to invite Dapper to the events.

Roessler, however, alleged that Dapper became so strident in his demands to be invited that he threatened to fire Roessler if he did not comply, so he relented.

Federal Judge Tanya Walton Pratt dismissed Roessler’s suit against Dapper in late August. No explanation was given for the decision in court documents.

Dapper co-founded Royal Spa in 1981 with Rick Bartlett. The company is headquartered at 2041 W. Epler Ave. on the south side. It has three company-owned locations and more than 50 dealers in Indiana and 10 other states, in addition to Belgium and the Netherlands, according to the company’s website.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • About Time
    I was glad to read that Mr. Dapper had prevailed. I hope that everyone that reported it as news in the beginning-will also feel compelled to let everyone know that he has prevailed. These people have tried to ruin Mr. Dapper's reputation-everyone needs to know that Bob prevailed and it was obvious to the courts that the other party causing the problem were in the wrong.
  • The Truth
    It was just as harmfull to the Roessler's who were speaking the truth. The outcome written here is clearly incomplete, since the specifics are undisclosed in court documents.
  • Kudos
    Kudos to IBJ for this story clarifying what previously to Dapper was a devastating and personally harmful report. Now Channel 8 and WIBC should get on board with their clarifications.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

    2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

    3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

    4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

    5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

    ADVERTISEMENT