Norman v. Borison
17 A.3d 697
| Md. | 2011Background
- Norman and Sussex owners Chaudhry and Farahpour were defendants in a mortgage-rescue class action; Norman claimed respondents defamed him by republication of pleadings and via comments to the press.
- Mortgage rescue scheme description involved real-estate professionals using straw buyers to extract fees and strip equity, with Sussex acting as closing settlement agent.
- State court class action was filed in 2007; newspapers published articles about the suit the day after filing, naming Sussex among defendants.
- Federal action followed; amended complaints added Chaudhry, Farahpour, Ballesteros; Norman appeared in later federal/ state pleadings though not initially named in the federal complaint.
- Circuit Court dismissed certain defamation counts on absolute privilege grounds; Court of Special Appeals affirmed; Norman sought certiorari to Maryland Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue for defamation | Norman had standing as a company owner affected by statements naming Sussex. | Standing limited to named parties; Norman not personally defamed in initial pleadings. | Court assumed standing for discussion but affirmed absolute privilege analysis. |
| Extent of absolute privilege to republication of pleadings | Republication of incomplete pleadings to media should defeat privilege. | Republished pleadings remain within absolute privilege if published in course of judicial proceedings. | Absolute privilege applies to republication of pleadings to press and internet. |
| Absolute privilege for attorney statements to press | Public comments by respondents to the press were outside the proceeding and not privileged. | As attorneys of record, their statements related to the proceeding and should be privileged. | Absolute privilege extends to respondents' verbal statements to press when made in the course of the proceeding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Peck, 288 Md. 1 (Md. 1980) (extends absolute privilege to statements made outside the proceeding if related to pending litigation)
- Kennedy v. Cannon, 229 Md. 92 (Md. 1962) (absolute privilege for statements made to the press in defense of a client; cautions limits)
- Offen v. Brenner, 402 Md. 191 (Md. 2007) (pleadings and documents directly related to the case are privileged)
- Gersh v. Ambrose, 291 Md. 188 (Md. 1981) (Gersh test for protecting quasi-judicial proceedings with procedural safeguards)
- Odyniec v. Schneider, 322 Md. 520 (Md. 1991) (doctor's statements to patient during arbitration protected by privilege)
- Woodruff v. Trepel, 125 Md. App. 381 (Md. 1999) (attorney's communications related to ongoing proceedings privileged if relevant to the case)
- Sodergren v. Johns Hopkins Univ. Applied Physics Lab., 138 Md. App. 686 (Md. 2001) (settlement communications within judicial proceeding can be privileged)
- Miner v. Novotny, 304 Md. 164 (Md. 1985) (public interest in filing complaints outweighs defamatory risk)
- Imperial v. Drapeau, 351 Md. 38 (Md. 1998) (evaluates public interest and safeguards in privilege analysis)
- Korb v. Kowaleviocz, 285 Md. 699 (Md. 1979) (English rule for absolute privilege for witnesses/parties)