I do not write that Ugwuonye should not appeal - that is completely within his rights - but he is 99% probability bound to fail again on appeal. It was this same judge that made a Summary Judgment against him in my case of yore, and when Ugwuonye appealed, the Chief Judge - when on December 19, 2011 Ugwuonye asked (again) for extension of time to file the appeal - did not even give him till the February 28, 2012 that he asked for, but summarily dismissed his appeal on January 10, 2012 when he had no received his delayed brief. Going to the Supreme Court is even more dubious, because Constitutional grounds must exist....this is not Nigeria where every Tom, Dick and Mary ultimately can go to the Supreme Court, money and time permitting.
Ugwuonye still has two other cases pending, and my prediction is that both women Judges will come hard on him, despite his gratuitously tugging at their female emotional sleeves, that he is a single father who has lost two Thanksgiving Dinners already fighting his cases in Nigeria....oje Marina!
Ugwuonye still has two other cases pending, and my prediction is that both women Judges will come hard on him, despite his gratuitously tugging at their female emotional sleeves, that he is a single father who has lost two Thanksgiving Dinners already fighting his cases in Nigeria....oje Marina!
What we have here is not appealing a Motion decision but a comprehensive court ruling. In the Appeal Court process, the appellant has to GATHER ALL the documents leading up to the judgment, bind them and present before the court, etc. It is an expensive enterprise - and our pro se lawyer Ugwuonye is all by himself while some of you Esquire guys - Emenike, yourself, are cheering him on, with Hope Umunna now bailing out (of course cheering himself for predicting the outcome long ago) yet still calling Sowore a scoundrel. At least Ezeana Igirigi Achusim does not pretend to be a lawyer, even though he pretends to be a legal seance. One would have thought that one of you would take on his case pro bono all of this time - but you are only reading the facts of the case four years later, courtesy yours truly!
Haba!
We shall see....
Bolaji Aluko
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Ralph Nwokike <rnwokike@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Prof. Aluko:Thank you for providing the excerpts of the ruling and the reasoning of the judge in the case. Honestly, I did not follow this case when it started except now that I am reading the factual issues involved. All that I heard was that Emeka sued Sahara Reporters then.Notwithstanding the present ruling, whether you love with it or not, there is a reason there is a creation of Appeal Court and Supreme Court in every system to enable litigants deal with any level of injustice, and proceed to challenge the outcome from the Court of first instance. People preserve their rights of appeal and take the file to those Attorneys who do appellate work to distill the flaws in the rulings.Whether this Judge was right or wrong is a question of facts and law on Appeal. Sometimes, you can read a well written judgment but on appeal, it could be overturned on a single error of law. And remanded to the Trial Judge, once again, for review and trial. Even if the case comes out badly on appeal, the litigant can still proceed to Supreme Court . It has been seen over the years that litigants succeed in having the judgment overruled at the apex court, the Supreme Court, in many cases. Should you tell them to go home and lick their wounds because the Judge in the Court of First Instance ruled against them and is final, does not make sense. You will agree with me that the final say lies in the Supreme Court of any land if a litigant is bent on seeking justice at all costs.Like I said before, that decision is all Emeka's. And not any of us. It does not , however , depend on our analysis or agreement with what the Court had just delivered. That is why it is called Civil litigation. The buck does not stop on one Court alone. I guess, I read where Emeka indicates that he would take an appeal challenge after studying the ruling.Have a nice day.Ralph Nwokike, Esq.Seattle, Washington, USA.From: Mobolaji Aluko <alukome@gmail.com>
To: Ralph Nwokike <rnwokike@yahoo.com>
Cc: NaijaPolitics e-Group <NaijaPolitics@yahoogroups.com>; USAAfrica Dialogue <USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com>; "nigerianid@yahoogroups.com" <nigerianID@yahoogroups.com>; naijaintellects <naijaintellects@googlegroups.com>; OmoOdua <OmoOdua@yahoogroups.com>; Ra'ayi <Raayiriga@yahoogroups.com>; ekiti ekitigroups <ekitipanupo@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: Sowore Wins Suit filed By Self-Acclaimed Harvard Lawyer, EUgwuonye
Ralph Nwokike, Esq.:
1. After almost four years of the case being around, when will you become familiar with the facts, lawyer? Just reading the Messitte judgment (see Appendix, for your pleasure) should make any Tom, Dick and Mary, Tamodu, Lakuregbe and Bonike to become "familiar with the facts" if he or she really wants to.2. Please be aware that Judge Messitte has been sitting on his case for over six months now - or is it over one year sef? - which was when his last ruling on the case was given, with Sowore twiddling his thumbs wondering like Marvin Gaye what the heck was going on ever since! Ugwuonye did not approach the bench with new evidence all of that time - so where will he manufacture same now, with two other cases in the same DC Federal Court stacked against him? It will be be further tortoisodal journey-making to the proverbial land of disgrace, any appeal, I tell you.3. Meanwhile, let us now move on to next deadline November 30 or thereabout, when- Ugwuonye, then Judge Barbara J. Rothstein, is being awaited with respect to Embassy of Nigeria vs. Ugwuonye et. al. Request for Summary Judgment [Case 1:10-cv-01929-BJR-DAR], to be followed or preceded closely by- Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly who is also being awaited with respect to Ugwuonye vs. Adefuye et. al, Request for Summary Judgment, [Case 1:12-cv-00908-CKK].
We shall see...And there you have it.
Bolaji Aluko, EsquareWaiting patiently like a vultureOn Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:05 AM, Ralph Nwokike <rnwokike@yahoo.com> wrote:
Although I am not familiar with the facts of Emeka's case with Sahara reporters. He has two options- 1) file Motion for Reconsideration with new evidence or information, and, 2) preserve his rights of appeal by filing Notice of Appeal within the prescribed time if he believes there are erroneous ground that the Court granted the said SJM in favor of the Defendants. It is left for him to make that determination and decision regardless of whatever anyone says on this case. I beleive it is only over when Emeka neglects the above options and decides not to pursue the case further. I don't understand why some folks are jumping around at this point.Ralph Nwokike,Esq.Seattle, Washington, USA.From: afis <odidere2001@yahoo.com>Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 10:31 AM
To: "abraham.madu@groups.facebook.com" <abraham.madu@groups.facebook.com>; Ezeana Igirigi Achusim <igirigiachusim@aol.com>; niyi adebisi <niyi528@yahoo.com>; "adedeibe1@yahoo.com" <adedeibe1@yahoo.com>; Adeniba Adepoyigi <adenibaadepoyigi@yahoo.com.au>; Pius Adesanmi <piusadesanmi@yahoo.com>; Chido Nwangwu <africaworks@sbcglobal.net>; Chim Ahanotu <celebrateng@yahoo.com>; Martin Akindana <matto1@msn.com>; Celestine Alaribe <alaribe12@yahoo.com>; bolaji aluko <alukome@gmail.com>; anambraforum <anambraforum@yahoogroups.com>; Okpo buru na anya <IgboWorldForum@yahoogroups.com>; Seyi Olu Awofeso <seyioluawofeso@gmail.com>; Ayo Ojutalayo <ayoojutalayo@yahoo.com>; "babamgboye@verizon.com" <babamgboye@verizon.com>; Baduba54 <baduba54@aol.com>; "Batokkinc@aol.com" <Batokkinc@aol.com>; Rufus Orindare <batokkinc@att.net>; "BeliefsAndReligion@yahoogroups.com" <BeliefsAndReligion@yahoogroups.com>; Chucks <agwu22@yahoo.com>; collyezebuihe <collyezebuihe@hotmail.com>; "aadeboye@mac com" <aadeboye@mac.com>; "udeamauche@yahoo com" <udeamauche@yahoo.com>; "gloria200000@yahoo com" <gloria200000@yahoo.com>; "pcdbooks@yahoo com" <pcdbooks@yahoo.com>; "elewuoye@gmail com" <elewuoye@gmail.com>; "yakubu usman@yahoo. com" <yakubu.usman@yahoo.com>; Dr. Humphrey Ihejirikah <drhumphreyi@gmail.com>; Edo-nationality <edo-nationality@yahoogroups.com>; Tony Eluemunor <teluemunor@yahoo.com>; Ugwuonye Private <Emekaugwuonye@aol.com>; "enugbua@aol com" <enugbua@aol.com>; igbo events <igboevents@yahoogroups.com>; rotimi fashakin <rotfash@yahoo.com>; George Kerley <georgekerley@yahoo.com>; Edo Global <edo_global@yahoogroups.com>; "Helemuo@yahoo.com" <Helemuo@yahoo.com>; "ibanga.nh@gmail.com" <ibanga.nh@gmail.com>; Ibukunolu Alao Babajide <ibk@usa.net>; sylvester idehen <idehen559@hotmail.com>; idowu <idowubobo@yahoo.com>; "IGBOBASICS@aol.com" <IGBOBASICS@aol.com>; Emenike C. <igbonize@yahoo.com>; "igbopeoplescongress-subscribe@yahoogroups.com" <igbopeoplescongress-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>; Joseph (CDC/OID/NCPDCID) Igietseme <jbi8@cdc.gov>; Chidi Igwe <chidi.igwe@gmail.com>; Ike Enyiagu <ike.enyiagu@gmail.com>; info <info_group@yahoogroups.com>; Eugene Iwuamanam <iwuamanam@hotmail.com>; Johnson Anyadike <anyadike@slb.com>; Ola Kassim <olakassimmd@aol.com>; "kcprinceasagwara@shaw.ca" <kcprinceasagwara@shaw.ca>; Ken( EDU) Asagwara <Ken.Asagwara@gov.mb.ca>; Abraham Madu <abraham.madu@yahoo.com>; Charles Maduka <zuzugbe@sbcglobal.net>; "mofeedee1@hotmail.com" <mofeedee1@hotmail.com>; Anthony Momah <azkk@yahoo.com>; Naija Observer <NaijaObserver@yahoogroups.com>; Naija Politics <naijapolitics@yahoogroups.com>; "gukaegbu@comcast net" <gukaegbu@comcast.net>; Naija Network <nigeria360@yahoogroups.com>; Nigerian World Forum <nigerianworldforum@yahoogroups.com>; kingsley Nnabuagha <kingsnna@yahoo.com>; Afis <odidere2001@yahoo.com>; Odua <omoodua@yahoogroups.com>; Olushola Fashedemi <ofashedemi@yahoo.com>; "ogban ulisa@yahoo com" <ogban_ulisa@yahoo.com>; Dominic Ogbonna <enyimocha@gmail.com>; "ogbunwezeh@yahoo.com" <ogbunwezeh@yahoo.com>; Val Ojo <valojo@md.metrocast.net>; "okenwanwosu@covad net" <okenwanwosu@covad.ne>; "okenwanwosu@covad.net" <okenwanwosu@covad.net>; Okechukwu Okonjo <o_okonjo@yahoo.co.uk>; Oladosu <alaremu2007@yahoo.co.uk>; 'Segun Olude <segunolude@mac.com>; Nowa Omoigui <nowa_o@yahoo.com>; "orbyaginam@yahoo.com" <orbyaginam@yahoo.com>; ozodiobi osuji <ozodiosuji@gmail.com>; "ozodiosuji@yahoo ca" <ozodiosuji@yahoo.ca>; P. H. Bamaiyi <phbamaiyi@yahoo.com>; "piayinor@yahoo.com" <piayinor@yahoo.com>; "piusadesanmi@gmx com" <piusadesanmi@gmx.com>; Tajudeen Raji <TRaji@aol.com>; Salihu Mustafa <salihumustafa@gmail.com>; "sujikolawole@gmail com" <sujikolawole@gmail.com>; "talkhard@yahoogroups.com" <talkhard@yahoogroups.com>; Talk Nigeria <TalkNigeria@yahoogroups.com>; "ericayoola@aol co. uk" <ericayoola@aol.co.uk>; "edoregeneration@yahoo co. uk" <edoregeneration@yahoo.co.uk>; umuanambra <umuanambra@yahoogroups.com>; "vin modebelu@yahoo.com" <vin_modebelu@yahoo.com>; wale ojo lanre <waleojolanre@yahoo.com>; Unk Wharfsnake <wharfsnake@yahoo.com>; "yanarewa@yahoogroups.com" <yanarewa@yahoogroups.com>; Zubbie Ekwueme <zekwueme@yahoo.com>; "zikproject@googlegroups.com" <zikproject@googlegroups.com>; Naija Observer <NaijaObserver@yahoogroups.com>; Naija Politics <naijapolitics@yahoogroups.com>; Naija Network <nigeria360@yahoogroups.com>; Afis <odidere2001@yahoo.com>; Odua <omoodua@yahoogroups.com>; Talk Nigeria <TalkNigeria@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Nigeria360::Live] Sowore Wins Suit filed By Self-Acclaimed Harvard Lawyer, EUgwuonye
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLANDEPHRAIM UGWUONYE***Plaintiff, **v. * Civil No. PJM 09-658*OLUWOLE ROTIMI, et al.***Defendants. *FINAL ORDER OF JUDGMENTUpon consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Paper No. 100) and Plaintiff's Opposition thereto, it is, for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, this 20th day of November, 2012ORDERED1. Defendant Sowore's Motion for Summary Judgment (Paper No. 100) isGRANTEDas to all remaining Counts;2. Final Judgment isENTERED in favor of Defendant Sowore and against PlaintiffUgwuonye; and3. The Clerk shallCLOSE this case./s/________________PETER J. MESSITTEUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@Shikena.afis__._,_.___APPENDIXQUOTE1. Defendant Sowore's Motion for Summary Judgment (Paper No. 100) is GRANTED as to allremaining Counts; 2. Final Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Defendant Sowore and againstPlaintiff Ugwuonye; and 3. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. - Judgment Order by J. MessitteUNQUOTEQUOTE[Ugwuonye claimed that Sowore] "Falsely stated or implied that this court had sanctioned Plaintiff for filinga frivolous lawsuit." Ugwuonye offers no opposition to summary judgment as to this statement. Even so, theCourt finds that the statement is substantially true and could not have been made with malice. Inaddition, it was a privileged report on a legal proceeding. Ugwuonye initially included Aluko asa defendant in the present case. The Court allowed Ugwuonye to voluntarily dismiss Alukobased on lack of personal jurisdiction. However, the Court also ordered Ugwuonye to payAluko's attorneys fees, given that Ugwuonye had filed the suit alleging diversity of citizenshipjurisdiction even though both Ugwuonye and Aluko were Maryland residents. (See July 28,2009 Memorandum, Dkt. 45.) A reasonable reading of the Court's order clearly indicates that itwas in the nature of a sanction because Ugwuonye, a licensed attorney, had filed a lawsuit thathe knew or should have known this Court had no jurisdiction to hear. The fact that Sowore mayhave characterized Ugwuonye's suit as "frivolous" was without a doubt fair comment.UNQUOTEQUOTEUgwuonye argues in his opposition that he was unable to respond to the requests foradmission because he was overseas in Nigeria and unaware of the discovery requests. But this isUgwuonye's suit and he has an obligation to keep up with developments in connection with it.See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 406-07 (4th Cir. 2010) (affirming grantof summary judgment despite opponent's objection that he never received email notice andtherefore could not oppose motion, because it was obligation of attorney to keep up with docketdespite computer issues). Moreover, Ugwuonye admits that during the very same period healleges he was unaware of Sowore's requests, he was able to propound his own discoveryrequests. This calls into serious question his alleged inability to respond..........For the reasons discussed above, this Court GRANTS Sowore's Motion for SummaryJudgment as to all counts. A separate Order will ISSUE.UNQUOTEAppendix:Following are:Document 1: Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 114 Filed 11/26/12: One Page - Final Order of Judgment of Judge MessitteDocument 2: Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 113 Filed 11/26/12: Fifteen Pages - Memorandum Opinion of Judge Messitte------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 114 Filed 11/26/12 Page 1 of 1IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLANDEPHRAIM UGWUONYE ***Plaintiff, **v. * Civil No. PJM 09-658*OLUWOLE ROTIMI, et al. ***Defendants. *FINAL ORDER OF JUDGMENTUpon consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Paper No. 100) andPlaintiff's Opposition thereto, it is, for the reasons stated in the accompanying MemorandumOpinion, this 20th day of November, 2012ORDERED1. Defendant Sowore's Motion for Summary Judgment (Paper No. 100) is GRANTEDas to all remaining Counts;2. Final Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Defendant Sowore and against PlaintiffUgwuonye; and3. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case./s/________________PETER J. MESSITTEUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 113 Filed 11/26/12 Page 1 of 15IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLANDEPHRAIM UGWUONYE **Plaintiff, **v. * Civil No. PJM 09-658*OLUWOLE ROTIMI, et al. **Defendants. *MEMORANDUM OPINIONPro se Plaintiff Ephraim Ugwuonye, an attorney admitted to the bar of this Court,originally filed this defamation and invasion of privacy suit against multiple Defendants basedon an article that appeared on a website with the domain name "Saharareporters.com." Thatwebsite purports to provide "commentaries, features, [and] news reports from a Nigerian-Africanperspective."1 For various reasons, all but one Defendant have been dismissed from the case.2The sole remaining Defendant, Omoyele Sowore, is the founder of Saharareporters.com. In hisSecond Amended Complaint, Ugwuonye asserts claims against Sowore based on fourSaharareporters.com articles published between 2009 and 2010. Sowore has filed a Motion forSummary Judgment. For the reasons that follow, the Court will GRANT Sowore's Motion.I."The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuinedispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.------ footnotes1 Available at http://saharareporters.com/page/about-sahara-reporters. For further background,see the Court's July 30, 2010 Opinion (Dkt. 60), denying Defendant Sowore's Motion toDismiss.2 Oluwole Rotimi was dismissed for lack of service of process. Ugwuonye voluntarily dismissedhis claims against Domain by Proxy, Inc. and Mobolaji Aluko.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 113 Filed 11/26/12 Page 2 of 15R. Civ. P. 56(a). The court must "view the evidence in the light most favorable to ... thenonmovant, and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor without weighing the evidence orassessing the witnesses' credibility." Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d639, 644–45 (4th Cir. 2002). The court, however, must also abide by the "'affirmative obligationof the trial judge to prevent factually unsupported claims and defenses from proceeding to trial.'"Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 526 (4th Cir. 2003) (quotingDrewitt v. Pratt, 999 F.2d 774, 778–79 (4th Cir. 1993)). Summary judgment is warranted whena party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the elements essential to the party's claimand on which the party will bear the burden of proof at trial. 3 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.317, 322 (1986). If there is not sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find for thenonmovant, summary judgment is appropriate. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,248 (1986).-------------- footnotes3 Ugwuonye failed to respond in timely fashion to Sowore's Requests for Admission. Thoserequests asked Ugwuonye to admit, among other things, that each statement he alleged to bedefamatory was in fact substantially true and made without malice. Under the Federal Rules, afailure to timely respond to a request for admission means that the matter is deemed admitted.Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 36(a)(3). Ugwuonye, a lawyer, is certainly expected to be familiar with theFederal Rules. His nonresponse effectively admits that the challenged statements aresubstantially true and were made without malice.Ugwuonye argues in his opposition that he was unable to respond to the requests foradmission because he was overseas in Nigeria and unaware of the discovery requests. But this isUgwuonye's suit and he has an obligation to keep up with developments in connection with it.See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 406-07 (4th Cir. 2010) (affirming grantof summary judgment despite opponent's objection that he never received email notice andtherefore could not oppose motion, because it was obligation of attorney to keep up with docketdespite computer issues). Moreover, Ugwuonye admits that during the very same period healleges he was unaware of Sowore's requests, he was able to propound his own discoveryrequests. This calls into serious question his alleged inability to respond.Ugwuonye's failure to timely respond to Sowore's Requests for Admission provides asufficient basis for the grant of Sowore's motion and the Court hereby adopts that as anindependent ground for granting Sowore's motion. Alternatively and cumulatively, the Courtwill also proceed to analyze the case on the merits.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 113 Filed 11/26/12 Page 3 of 15In a defamation case, recovery depends on whether plaintiff is a public or private figure.For a private figure to recover, he or she must demonstrate that: (1) the defendant made adefamatory communication, i.e., communicated a statement tending to expose the plaintiff topublic scorn, hatred, contempt, or ridicule to a third person who reasonably recognized thestatement as being defamatory; (2) the statement was false; (3) the defendant was at fault incommunicating the statement; and (4) the plaintiff suffered harm. See Piscatelli v. Van Smith, 35A.3d 1140, 1147 (Md. 2012).A public figure has a higher bar. In order to succeed on a defamation claim, he or shemust demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the statements were (1) defamatory, (2)false, and (3) made with "actual malice." See, e.g., Chesapeake Pub. Corp. v. Williams, 661A.2d 1169, 1174 (Md. 1995). Actual malice is established only if the plaintiff can show that thedefendant published the statements with actual knowledge of their falsity or with recklessdisregard for their truth. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964),Shapiro v. Massengill, 661 A.2d 202, 217 (Md. 1995).The actual malice standard is intended to give wide berth to reports on public figures andmatters of public interest. See New York Times Co., 376 U.S. at 278-79; Capital-GazetteNewspapers, 445 A.2d at 1043. In this context, even erroneous statements are protected whenhonestly made are protected, a policy which fosters frank debate and dialogue.Further, when the challenged statements are reports on legal proceedings, as some arehere, Maryland recognizes a qualified privilege for fair and substantially accurate reports. In themodern view, this protects the statements regardless of the state of mind of the publisher. SeeChesapeake Pub., 661 A.2d at 1174-75, Nanji v. Nat'l Geographic Soc., 403 F. Supp. 2d 425,433-34 (D. Md. 2005).--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 113 Filed 11/26/12 Page 4 of 15A plaintiff cannot defeat summary judgment in a defamation case simply by assertingthat the publication was false. See Pratt v. Delta Air Lines, 675 F. Supp. 991, 996 (D. Md. 1987).The purpose of Rule 56 is not to replace the conclusory statements in a complaint with those inan affidavit. See Lujan v. National Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990).Allegations of invasion of privacy/false light claims are analyzed according to the samelegal standards as allegations of defamation. See Piscatelli, 35 A.3d at 1146-47. Separateanalysis of those claims is therefore unnecessary.II.Ugwuonye is a public figure. The Circuit Court for Montgomery County explicitly foundhim to be such in a related proceeding involving many of the same statements sued upon here.4Ugwuonye is, thus, collaterally estopped from arguing otherwise here. See Guccione v. HustlerMagazine, Inc., 632 F. Supp. 313, 317 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), rev'd on other grounds, 800 F.2d 298(2d Cir. 1986) (plaintiff found to be public figure in earlier libel suit was collaterally estoppedfrom claiming otherwise in case at hand).5 Indeed, Ugwuonye himself acknowledges that he hasachieved fame and notoriety in the community, claiming, among other things, that he has been"listed among the top experts on corporate law, finance and government" at the Harvard Institutefor International Development (see Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 70) ¶ 15), and that he hasmaintained power and influence on the basis of his education and high-profile positions,-------------- footnotes4 See Ugwuonye v. Aluko, et al., No. 314155V. Mobolaji Aluko, originally a defendant in thepresent action, was voluntarily dismissed in July 2009, but Ugwuonye then filed the state courtaction against him.5 Under Maryland law, collateral estoppel applies when, as here: (1) the issue sought to beprecluded is identical to the one litigated; (2) the issue was actually determined; (3)determination of the issue was a critical and necessary part of the decision in the priorproceeding; (4) the proceeding was final and valid; and (5) the party against whom estoppel isasserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. See Campbell v. Lake HallowellHomeowners Ass'n, 852 A.2d 1029, 1037–38 (Md. 2004).--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 113 Filed 11/26/12 Page 5 of 15including serving as counsel to the World Bank and to the Government of Nigeria in several highprofile cases. He avers that he is an attorney who has competed "at the highest echelon of thelegal profession worldwide" (id. ¶ 17). His testimony about speaking to hundreds or thousandsof people about this case demonstrates that he has ample access to channels of communication.These facts all point unequivocally to Ugwuonye's fame, notoriety, and stature within thecommunity. See Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 155 (1967). The allegedlydefamatory statements in this case (including regarding high-level embassy transactions anddealings between the U.S. and Nigerian Governments), as noted by the Circuit Court forMontgomery County, are quintessentially of public concern. See Ugwuonye v. Aluko, et al., No.314155V, July 23, 2010 Hearing Transcript, pp. 64-65.As a public figure, then, Ugwuonye must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidencethat Sowore made the challenged statements with actual malice—that is, with actual knowledgeof their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth. See Masson v The New YorkerMagazine, 501 U.S. 496, 510 (1991) (quoting New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279-80).Demonstrating actual malice poses a heavy burden. Courts have held that it"cannot be established merely by showing that: the publication was erroneous,derogatory or untrue; the publisher acted out of ill will, hatred or a desire to injurethe official; the publisher acted negligently; the publisher acted in reliance on theunverified statement of a third party without personal knowledge of the subjectmatter of the defamatory statement; or the publisher acted without undertaking theinvestigation that would have been made by a reasonably prudent person."Capital-Gazette Newspapers, Inc. v. Stack, 445 A.2d 1038, 1044 (1982) (citations omitted).Applying this standard to the facts of the case, viewed in the light most favorable to Ugwuonye,the Court finds that no trier of fact could reasonably conclude by clear and convincing evidencethat any of the statements in issue in this case were made with actual malice.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 113 Filed 11/26/12 Page 6 of 15The Court considers each of the statements.6III.The first three statements appeared in a March 5, 2009 Saharareporters.com article. Thearticle, headlined "Property scandal rocks Nigerian Embassy in Washington DC; formerAmbassador Obiozor fingered," reports on a variety of real estate transactions in theWashington, DC area involving the Nigerian Embassy, and questions the reported values of anumber of real estate sales. The article notes that Ugwuonye provided legal assistance to theEmbassy in connection with these transactions. The article further states that Ugwuonyewithheld the Embassy's $1.5 million IRS tax refund due from the sales, allegedly because theNigerian government owed him legal fees for representing Nigerian officials in unrelatedlitigation. The article also reports that Ugwuonye has previously faced attorney disciplinaryproceedings.It is undisputed that, when writing the article, Sowore investigated public records,researched cases involving Ugwuonye, and spoke to Ugwuonye by telephone at least once.Sowore affirms that he and Ugwuonye discussed the Embassy transactions and that he askedUgwuonye why he had withheld the refund, to which Ugwuonye responded that he withheld it asa fee to compensate him for previous litigation work for the Embassy and that he and theNigerian Government were in the midst of negotiating with respect to the fee. Ugwuonyeacknowledges that he discussed the Embassy transactions with Sowore, but claims he did not getto explain his side of the story; he says he simply told Sowore there was no fraud. However,-------------- footnote6 The Court confines its consideration to statements pled in the Second Amended Complaint. Inhis opposition to Sowore's Motion for Summary Judgment, Ugwuonye appears to allege thatadditional statements are defamatory. While the Court declines to analyze these new statements,a brief review of same suggests that none appear to be defamatory. In any event, Ugwuonye hasin no way suggested why these late-remembered statements were not set forth in the SecondAmended Complaint.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 113 Filed 11/26/12 Page 7 of 15even if Ugwuonye disputes that he told Sowore he was withholding the tax refund as paymentfor previous legal work, it is undisputed that this is what Ugwuonye actually did. He withheldthe refund. Ugwuonye says as much in the papers he has submitted to the Court, suggesting thatthe Nigerian Government initially agreed that he could settle its outstanding legal bills byholding a tax refund due to the Embassy; that he thought he could disburse the refund after beingpaid by other sources (and therefore, as he testified in his deposition, that he promised theEmbassy he would disburse the refund); that he later realized he could not disburse the refund;and that he then took steps to apply the refund to the unpaid legal bills. Ugwuonye furtheradmits that a dispute then arose with the Embassy regarding the application of the tax refund tohis fees, and states that this dispute was part of a larger intra-Embassy quarrel that was resolvedwhen the new Nigerian Ambassador (Oluwole Rotimi) was fired by his supervising Minister.Per Ugwuonye, it was in connection with that very dispute that a DC Bar Complaint was filedagainst him, one—to be sure—which was ultimately dismissed.Against this background, the specific statements Ugwuonye alleges to be defamatory arethese:(1) "[Plaintiff] said he apprised [then Ambassador] Obiozor over his seizure of theembassy's tax refund, fueling speculation that Obiozor tacitly approved the seizurefor pecuniary reasons as he did not try to retrieve the money from [Plaintiff] before heleft the U.S."Given the facts just reviewed, this statement can hardly be considered defamatory. Quitesimply, it involves facts that Ugwuonye does not dispute—that he withheld over a million dollarsof the Nigerian Embassy's tax refund with the Nigerian Embassy's knowledge. The statementcould not have been made with actual malice.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 113 Filed 11/26/12 Page 8 of 15(2) "But [Plaintiff's] seizure of the embassy funds points to a track record of someprofessional troubles relating to his competence and manner of handling clientmonies."This statement involves the same undisputed facts, namely Ugwuonye's withholding ofthe Embassy's tax refund. In addition, it contains privileged reporting regarding Ugwuonye'spast professional misconduct proceedings. Unquestionably a disciplinary matter came before theMaryland Court of Appeals, which considered potential misconduct involving two ofUgwuonye's matters, and which found that Ugwuonye had in fact violated various provisions ofthe code of professional conduct, including provisions regarding competence, fees andsafekeeping of property. Sowore's reporting as to Ugwuonye's professional troubles relating to"competence and handling client monies" was therefore substantially accurate. Even if it werenot, Ugwuonye has failed to proffer any evidence that this statement—or any part of it—wasmade with actual malice.(3) "Details of the cases point to [Plaintiff's] professional shadiness."The third statement amounts to a non-actionable opinion as well as privileged reportingon Ugwuonye's past professional misconduct hearings. Again, most importantly, Ugwuonye hasfailed to offer evidence that Sowore made this statement with anything approaching actualmalice.IV.Challenged statements 4 through 10 appeared in the Sahareporters.com article, entitled"Ugwuonye loses lawsuit to summary judgment," which was published on July 23, 2010. Thearticle discusses the Nigerian Embassy real estate transactions and Ugwuonye's seizure of thetax refund. It also speaks of Ugwuonye's and the Nigerian Government's "habit" of using libellawsuits to suppress public debate. The article focuses on Ugwuonye's state court case against------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 113 Filed 11/26/12 Page 9 of 15Mobolaji Aluko, in which the state judge granted Aluko's motion for summary judgment. Thespecific challenged statements made by Sowore are these:(4) "Falsely stated that Plaintiff made a habit of using libel lawsuits to suppress publicdebate about the controversial sale of properties belonging to the Nigerian embassy inWashington DC and Maryland."By the time this article was published, Ugwuonye had indeed brought multiple lawsuitsbased on the March 2009 piece questioning the circumstances of the sale of Nigerian Embassyproperties. Sowore was well aware of these lawsuits, having been the subject of one himself.Again, there is not the least evidence from which to find that this statement was made with actualmalice.(5) "Falsely stated or clearly insinuated or implied that Plaintiff withheld the funds of hisclients to which he is not entitled or unlawfully."Ugwuonye does not oppose Sowore's motion for summary judgment as to this statement.But regardless—Ugwuonye has admitted to holding a tax refund owing to the Nigerian Embassy,has admitted to telling the Embassy he would deliver the refund, and has admitted to notdelivering the refund. Consequently, the statement could not have been made with actual malice.(6) "Falsely stated or implied that this court had sanctioned Plaintiff for filing a frivolouslawsuit."Ugwuonye offers no opposition to summary judgment as to this statement. Even so, theCourt finds that the statement is substantially true and could not have been made with malice. Inaddition, it was a privileged report on a legal proceeding. Ugwuonye initially included Aluko asa defendant in the present case. The Court allowed Ugwuonye to voluntarily dismiss Alukobased on lack of personal jurisdiction. However, the Court also ordered Ugwuonye to pay---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 113 Filed 11/26/12 Page 10 of 15Aluko's attorneys fees, given that Ugwuonye had filed the suit alleging diversity of citizenshipjurisdiction even though both Ugwuonye and Aluko were Maryland residents. (See July 28,2009 Memorandum, Dkt. 45.) A reasonable reading of the Court's order clearly indicates that itwas in the nature of a sanction because Ugwuonye, a licensed attorney, had filed a lawsuit thathe knew or should have known this Court had no jurisdiction to hear. The fact that Sowore mayhave characterized Ugwuonye's suit as "frivolous" was without a doubt fair comment. But evenif his report of the import of the Court's order was not entirely accurate, it is clear that minortechnical inaccuracies may occur in the course of reporting on legal proceedings without givingrise to liability. See, e.g., Nanji, 403 F. Supp. 2d at 432-33.(7) "Referring to a related case in the State court (Ugwuonye v. Aluko, et al., CircuitCourt of Maryland for Montgomery County, Case No. 314155-V), Defendant falselystated that the state court found that the allegation of fraud made against Plaintiff wastrue."Ugwuonye does not attempt to pursue this allegation in his Opposition and for goodreason. The Court does not find this statement or anything resembling it in the July 23 article.(8) "Referring to a real estate transaction, in which Plaintiff represented the NigerianGovernment in Maryland, Defendant Sowore mischaracterized the power of attorneygranted to Plaintiff by his client, and falsely alleged that the reason Plaintiff obtainedsuch power of attorney was to enable him to control the funds belonging to theNigerian government to Plaintiff's advantage, and that armed with the power ofattorney, Plaintiff improperly took control of the funds of his client."Ugwuonye has also proffered no opposition to Sowore's motion regarding this allegation.The facts regarding the Embassy transaction, as discussed above, are that Ugwuonye retained hisclient's funds and did not return them despite a promise to do otherwise. No reasonable jury-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 113 Filed 11/26/12 Page 11 of 15could find that Sowore made this statement with actual knowledge of its falsity or a recklessdisregard for the truth.(9) "Referring to this lawsuit, Defendant falsely stated and/or implied that theGovernment of Nigeria had given funds to the Plaintiff and had a pact with thePlaintiff aimed at filing this suit for the purpose of suppressing or repressing thefreedoms of Nigerian citizens."In his opposition, Ugwuonye argues that language such as this "betrays the tension thathas existed" between Sowore and Ugwuonye over the years. This statement is of dubiousrelevance. Even if there truly was tension between the two, it would not satisfy the requirementof actual malice. Actual malice cannot be established by demonstrating that "the publisher actedof ill will, hatred, or a desire to injure." See Capital-Gazette Newspapers, 445 A.2d at 1044.Actual malice requires clear and convincing evidence that Sowore published his statements withknowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth. On the evidence before theCourt, Ugwuonye has made no such demonstration. Sowore has reported on the activities of theNigerian Government for some time, and has been sued more than once on the basis of suchreporting. Sowore contends that an individual who brought one of these suits against him is nowworking in a high-level Nigerian Government position. Ugwuonye does not dispute that he wascounsel for high-level Nigerian Government transactions, and has further stated that thedisagreement over the tax refund was tied to a larger Embassy dispute that was only resolvedwith the firing of an Ambassador, suggesting that Ugwuonye may well have been supported inhis litigation by someone within the Nigerian Government. Sowore could fairly opine that theNigerian Government was and is behind this suit and others. No reasonable trier of fact couldfind that he made this statement with actual malice.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 113 Filed 11/26/12 Page 12 of 15(10) "Many who read the publication understood the memorandum as the judgment ofthe state court against Plaintiff."Ugwuonye's Second Amended Complaint mischaracterizes the July 23 article, which byno construction reads as if it is the judgment of the Circuit Court of Maryland againstUgwuonye. In any case, Ugwuonye does not attempt to oppose Sowore's motion for summaryjudgment regarding this point, so nothing more need be said about it.V.Statements 11 through 13 appeared in an August 2, 2010 Sahareporters.com article. Thearticle, which covered much the same ground as previous articles, focuses on Ugwuonye'scompanies, calling them "forfeited," stating that they were revived at the same time Ugwuonyewas working for the Nigerian Embassy, and reporting that a source at the Maryland StateComptroller referred to Ugwuonye as a "deadbeat resident agent."Sowore has testified that he wrote this article based on evidence produced in the statecourt case and on further research that that evidence generated. Sowore says he initially learnedthat Ugwuonye had two companies, ECU Law and ECU Associates, P.C., which, according topublic records Sowore investigated, had their corporate charters forfeited more than once forfailure to pay taxes. Sowore also determined that the records showed that the dates ofreinstatement of the companies coincided with the times Ugwuonye was engaged by theNigerian Embassy to carry out the real estate transactions mentioned in the March 5, 2009article. Sowore says he contacted the Maryland State Comptroller to seek additional informationregarding Ugwuonye's companies, and it was then he was told by an individual there thatUgwuonye was a "deadbeat resident agent," obviously referring to the multiple forfeitures of hiscorporate charters. In his opposition, Ugwuonye does not actually dispute any of these facts; he---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 113 Filed 11/26/12 Page 13 of 15merely argues that Sowore had control over the article and that it defames him. The specificstatements Ugwuonye deems defamatory are as follows:(11) "Falsely stated or implied that Plaintiff obtained a power of attorney from hisclient for the purpose of improperly withholding his client's funds."Based on the same rationale discussed in respect to Statements 5 and 8, no reasonabletrier of fact could find that this statement was made with actual malice.(12) "Falsely stated and implied that Plaintiff revived the charter of his company in adeceptive and improper manner for the purpose of Nigerian Government's real estatetransaction."Ugwuonye mischaracterizes the article. The article states that Ugwuonye revived hiscompanies in time to do work for the Nigerian Embassy (which Ugwuonye does not dispute).The article does not contain any statement or even any implication that Ugwuonye revived thecharter of his companies in a deceptive or improper manner. The actual statements, taken incontext, quite simply, do not have a defamatory meaning and appear substantially true.(13) "Falsely stated and implied that an official at the office of the State Comptroller inMaryland made disparaging remarks against the person of Plaintiff and his businesspractices."Sowore offers sworn testimony that statement 13 is an accurate report of his exchangewith a Maryland State Comptroller employee, who told him that Ugwuonye was a "deadbeatresident agent" because his corporate charters had been repeatedly forfeited based on failure topay taxes. Ugwuonye does not dispute that he failed to pay taxes for his companies or that hiscorporate charters had been forfeited. While he may feel that his characterization as a"deadbeat" is harsh, a dictionary definition of the term, namely, "a person who does not paydebts or financial obligations" (see Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009)), does not unfairly-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 113 Filed 11/26/12 Page 14 of 15characterize Ugwuonye's situation with respect to the corporate charters. This statement couldnot have been made with actual malice.VI.Statement 14, which refers to an August 3, 2010 Sahareporters.com article bearing thebyline of Ugwuonye's sister, Ifesinachi Ugwuonye, 7 is as follows:(14) "[F]alsely stating and implying that Plaintiff is a thief and an adulterer and aperson that Plaintiff [sic] engages in acts that involve moral turpitude."Sowore has testified that the article was widely circulated in Nigerian online forumsbefore he published it. Ugwuonye asserts in his opposition that Sowore received this article fromAluko and published it without doing any investigation. Ugwuonye also asserts that Soworeinitially attempted to get an individual named Carlisle Umunnah to publish the article on hiswebsite, but that Umunnah declined because it was a "false story" and specifically told Soworenot to publish it.8The article in question was written by Ugwuonye's sister, who has testified she believesthe information in the article is true. Sowore, when he published the report, also believed it wastrue, and had little cause to believe otherwise. The statement, after all, came from Ugwuonye'ssister.Thus, even if Sowore knew that Ugwuonye and Ifesinachi were on bad terms, the factthat the sister of a public figure was making such extreme allegations against her brother—apublic figure after all—would be newsworthy in and of itself. See Campbell v. Seabury Press,614 F.2d 395 (5th Cir. 1980) (private life of public figure who was married to author's brother------------ footnotes7 The Court, in order to avoid confusion and intending no disrespect, will refer to IfesinachiUgwuonye by her first name.8 What Umunnah may have said to Sowore and when he said it is hardly relevant to whether ornot the publication was defamatory. Similarly, whether Aluko was the source of the article hasno relevance to that question.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 113 Filed 11/26/12 Page 15 of 15was legitimately within public interest); Berg v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co., 79 F. Supp.957 (D. Minn. 1948) (family members litigating against each other newsworthy). So right orwrong, publication of the statement could not have been made with reckless disregard of the factthat it was a sister making the allegations. Beyond that, from a policy standpoint it would seemdistinctly inappropriate and unfair to sustain a defamation claim against a third-party forpublishing an article written by the complainant's own sister, particularly when the complainanthas not sued the sister. The possibility for collusion and extortion by the family—any family—against a third party would be unacceptable.VII.For the reasons discussed above, this Court GRANTS Sowore's Motion for SummaryJudgment as to all counts. A separate Order will ISSUE./s/ ___PETER J. MESSITTENovember 20, 2012UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment