Finley Alexander Wealth Management, LLC v. M & O Marketing, Inc.
8:19-cv-01312
| D. Maryland | Jun 5, 2025Background
- Finley Alexander Wealth Management, LLC and the Estate of Kyle Winkfield sued Edward Petersmarck, M&O Marketing, Inc. (Petersmarck’s employer), and M&O’s CEO Dennis Brown for tortious interference and defamation after Petersmarck anonymously posted a negative report about them on RipoffReport.com.
- The post, published on March 8, 2019, accused Winkfield and his firm of fraud relating to an annuity transaction; the post was published using information accessed via M&O.
- Jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs against Petersmarck and M&O (not against Brown), awarding substantial economic and noneconomic damages.
- After judgment, Petersmarck and M&O moved for judgment as a matter of law, new trial, amendment of judgment, and remittitur; Plaintiffs filed late oppositions, which the court struck for lack of excusable neglect.
- The Court denied most of Defendants' post-trial motions, but reduced noneconomic damages in accordance with Maryland's statutory cap, and ordered the defamatory post removed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did M&O ratify Petersmarck’s defamatory post? | M&O knew about the post, didn’t disavow it, thus ratified it. | M&O did not authorize/ratify; reprimanded Petersmarck. | Reasonable jury could find ratification; liability stands. |
| Was Petersmarck’s post false, supporting defamation? | Post had multiple factual falsities, including timing and intent of fraud. | The post was true or substantially true; no actionable falsity. | Sufficient evidence of falsity; verdict upheld. |
| Should the noneconomic damages award be capped? | (Implicit) Full damages justified by injury. | MD statutory cap applies to noneconomic damages. | Judge reduced award to statutory cap. |
| Should a new trial or remittitur be granted? | Noneconomic damages are justified and supported by evidence. | Award excessive/shocks conscience; evidentiary rulings flawed. | Remittitur/new trial denied (other than cap adjustment). |
Key Cases Cited
- Lack v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 240 F.3d 255 (4th Cir. 2001) (jury verdicts are to be reviewed with utmost respect on Rule 50 motions)
- Mayfield v. National Ass’n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369 (4th Cir. 2012) (standards for altering or amending a judgment)
- Atlas Food Sys. & Servs., Inc. v. Crane Nat'l Vendors, Inc., 99 F.3d 587 (4th Cir. 1996) (standards for remittitur of jury award)
- Knussman v. Maryland, 272 F.3d 625 (4th Cir. 2001) (standards for granting new trial and remittitur)
- Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1999) (court must not weigh witness credibility on 50 motions)