Memorandum Opinion - the Circuit Court for Baltimore City

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