Memorandum Opinion - the Circuit Court for Baltimore City

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Three days after “BARRYBUSTED.com” was launched, Rothstein filed the complaintagainst Strudwick and Weiss in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of NewYork on January 27, 2007. Although Rothstein is not a member of the New York bar and notlicensed to practice in the Eastern District of New York, he was the sole signatory on thecomplaint. Rothstein also made no effort to effect service upon any of the defendants, andStrudwick was never subject to suit in New York. Plaintiffs allege that the complaint wasfiled “for an illegal and improper purpose to satisfy an ulterior motive, by among otherthings, harassing a competitor, attempting to weaken a shareholder’s voice with her fellowshareholders, trying to extort a shareholder into giving up a legitimate proxy fight, andexpecting that the litigation . . . would give them cover to promote their defamatorycommunications.”Although she was never served, counsel for Weiss requested permission to file amotion to dismiss and a motion for sanctions against Rothstein and RRA under Fed. R. Civ.P. 11. The court granted the request. After the motions were filed and fully briefed, on oraround August 2, 2007, Rothstein dismissed the complaint. Even after the complaint wasdismissed, it remained posted on “BARRYBUSTED.com” for a full year.On January 27, 2007, two days prior to the filing of the lawsuit, Strudwick hosted agroup of developers at the Strudwick Development. Defendants displayed and distributeddefamatory flyers at the hotel where Strudwick’s potential investors were staying. The flyersrepeated the allegation that Strudwick had been “busted” and advised potential investors notto invest with him.alleging the same defamation as in the dismissed Florida action.8
In February 2007 defendants sent emails that contained the same defamatorystatements that were in the flyers and a hyperlink to “BARRYBUSTED.com” to 35 WINstudents, including those who had invested with Whitney in the Hotel. Although not allegedin the Complaint, in their Opposition Memorandum, plaintiffs allege that seven (7) of thoseWIN students are Maryland residents. 10Strudwick wrote to RAA demanding that “BARRYBUSTED.com” be removed fromthe internet. In response, Rothstein and RRA, on February 16, 2007 sent a letter to Strudwickstating that neither the website nor the brochures were “set up or touted by employees orother agents of WIN or with WIN’s resources.” Plaintiffs allege that this statement was falsebecause Caputo was claiming that he put the website up and prepared the flyers at the requestof WIN. In an email to Rothstein dated March 1, 2007, counsel for Strudwick askedRothstein to clarify whether Caputo’s statement that WIN was involved in the defamationwas accurate. To date, Rothstein has not replied.On or around March 7, 2007 representatives from International Living visited theStrudwick Development. On March 22, 2007 a representative from International Livingcontacted Strudwick and asked him to call International Living to “learn more about workingwith IL’s marketing team.” International Living, however, changed its mind about doingbusiness with Strudwick upon visiting “BARRYBUSTED.com.” Plaintiffs claim that thelost marketing opportunity with International Living has cost Strudwick “hundreds of visitorsand potential buyers, and millions in lost sales.”10Rothstein and RRA pointed out at the hearing that the document upon which plaintiffs relyto say that the email was sent to people in Maryland is not authenticated or supported by an affidavit.Rather than permitting plaintiffs to amend the complaint or file a supplemental affidavit, the Courtaccepts as true for purposes of this motion that the email was sent to seven WIN students inMaryland. (The document that plaintiffs rely upon lists four Maryland email addresses, three ofwhich are associated with two persons.)9
Page 2: In July 2008 Rothstein and Steven N
Page 5 and 6: shareholders permitting such voting
Page 7: lawsuit until such time as all reme
Page 11 and 12: arm statute.” Mackey, 391 Md. at
Page 13 and 14: printout of the web page of RRA. Th
Page 15 and 16: (1958)] suggests that the activitie
Page 17 and 18: jurisdiction over RRA for its “co
Page 19 and 20: State; and (3) whether the exercise
Page 21 and 22: whether there is specific jurisdict
Page 23 and 24: tribunal less burdensome”). With
Page 25 and 26: emails marketing and soliciting bus
Page 27 and 28: v. Catacombs Press, 44 F. Supp. 2d
Page 29 and 30: shares relevant characteristics wit
Page 31 and 32: suffering of harm there, will not a
Page 33 and 34: the acts are “targeted at a plain
Page 35 and 36: Relying on Freetown v. Whiteman, 93
Page 37 and 38: the requirements of the conspiracy
Page 39 and 40: Instead it states that in deciding
Page 41 and 42: Plaintiffs’ assertion that RRA ha

Memorandum Opinion - the Circuit Court for Baltimore City

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?