- 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, Esquare
Waiting patiently like a vulture
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__._,_.___
QUOTE
1. Defendant Sowore's Motion for Summary Judgment (Paper No. 100) is GRANTED as to all
remaining Counts; 2. Final Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Defendant Sowore and against
Plaintiff Ugwuonye; and 3. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. - Judgment Order by J. Messitte
UNQUOTE
QUOTE
[Ugwuonye claimed that Sowore] "Falsely stated or implied that this court had sanctioned Plaintiff for filing
a frivolous lawsuit." Ugwuonye offers no opposition to summary judgment as to this statement. Even so, the
Court finds that the statement is substantially true and could not have been made with malice. In
addition, it was a privileged report on a legal proceeding. Ugwuonye initially included Aluko as
a defendant in the present case. The Court allowed Ugwuonye to voluntarily dismiss Aluko
based on lack of personal jurisdiction. However, the Court also ordered Ugwuonye to pay
Aluko's attorneys fees, given that Ugwuonye had filed the suit alleging diversity of citizenship
jurisdiction 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 it
was in the nature of a sanction because Ugwuonye, a licensed attorney, had filed a lawsuit that
he knew or should have known this Court had no jurisdiction to hear. The fact that Sowore may
have characterized Ugwuonye's suit as "frivolous" was without a doubt fair comment.
UNQUOTE
QUOTE
Ugwuonye argues in his opposition that he was unable to respond to the requests for
admission because he was overseas in Nigeria and unaware of the discovery requests. But this is
Ugwuonye'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 grant
of summary judgment despite opponent's objection that he never received email notice and
therefore could not oppose motion, because it was obligation of attorney to keep up with docket
despite computer issues). Moreover, Ugwuonye admits that during the very same period he
alleges he was unaware of Sowore's requests, he was able to propound his own discovery
requests. This calls into serious question his alleged inability to respond..........
For the reasons discussed above, this Court GRANTS Sowore's Motion for Summary
Judgment as to all counts. A separate Order will ISSUE.
Appendix:
Following are:
Document 1: Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 114 Filed 11/26/12: One Page - Final Order of Judgment of Judge Messitte
Document 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 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
EPHRAIM UGWUONYE *
*
*
Plaintiff, *
*
v. * Civil No. PJM 09-658
*
OLUWOLE ROTIMI, et al. *
*
*
Defendants. *
FINAL ORDER OF JUDGMENT
Upon 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, 2012
ORDERED
1. Defendant Sowore's Motion for Summary Judgment (Paper No. 100) is GRANTED
as to all remaining Counts;
2. Final Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Defendant Sowore and against Plaintiff
Ugwuonye; and
3. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.
/s/________________
PETER J. MESSITTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 113 Filed 11/26/12 Page 1 of 15
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
EPHRAIM UGWUONYE *
*
Plaintiff, *
*
v. * Civil No. PJM 09-658
*
OLUWOLE ROTIMI, et al. *
*
Defendants. *
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro 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 based
on an article that appeared on a website with the domain name "Saharareporters.com." That
website purports to provide "commentaries, features, [and] news reports from a Nigerian-African
perspective."1 For various reasons, all but one Defendant have been dismissed from the case.2
The sole remaining Defendant, Omoyele Sowore, is the founder of Saharareporters.com. In his
Second Amended Complaint, Ugwuonye asserts claims against Sowore based on four
Saharareporters.com articles published between 2009 and 2010. Sowore has filed a Motion for
Summary 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 genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.
------ footnotes
1 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 to
Dismiss.
2 Oluwole Rotimi was dismissed for lack of service of process. Ugwuonye voluntarily dismissed
his claims against Domain by Proxy, Inc. and Mobolaji Aluko.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 113 Filed 11/26/12 Page 2 of 15
R. Civ. P. 56(a). The court must "view the evidence in the light most favorable to ... the
nonmovant, and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor without weighing the evidence or
assessing the witnesses' credibility." Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d
639, 644–45 (4th Cir. 2002). The court, however, must also abide by the "'affirmative obligation
of 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) (quoting
Drewitt v. Pratt, 999 F.2d 774, 778–79 (4th Cir. 1993)). Summary judgment is warranted when
a party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the elements essential to the party's claim
and 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 the
nonmovant, summary judgment is appropriate. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
248 (1986).
-------------- footnotes
3 Ugwuonye failed to respond in timely fashion to Sowore's Requests for Admission. Those
requests asked Ugwuonye to admit, among other things, that each statement he alleged to be
defamatory was in fact substantially true and made without malice. Under the Federal Rules, a
failure 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 the
Federal Rules. His nonresponse effectively admits that the challenged statements are
substantially true and were made without malice.
Ugwuonye argues in his opposition that he was unable to respond to the requests for
admission because he was overseas in Nigeria and unaware of the discovery requests. But this is
Ugwuonye'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 grant
of summary judgment despite opponent's objection that he never received email notice and
therefore could not oppose motion, because it was obligation of attorney to keep up with docket
despite computer issues). Moreover, Ugwuonye admits that during the very same period he
alleges he was unaware of Sowore's requests, he was able to propound his own discovery
requests. This calls into serious question his alleged inability to respond.
Ugwuonye's failure to timely respond to Sowore's Requests for Admission provides a
sufficient basis for the grant of Sowore's motion and the Court hereby adopts that as an
independent ground for granting Sowore's motion. Alternatively and cumulatively, the Court
will also proceed to analyze the case on the merits.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 113 Filed 11/26/12 Page 3 of 15
In 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 a
defamatory communication, i.e., communicated a statement tending to expose the plaintiff to
public scorn, hatred, contempt, or ridicule to a third person who reasonably recognized the
statement as being defamatory; (2) the statement was false; (3) the defendant was at fault in
communicating the statement; and (4) the plaintiff suffered harm. See Piscatelli v. Van Smith, 35
A.3d 1140, 1147 (Md. 2012).
A public figure has a higher bar. In order to succeed on a defamation claim, he or she
must 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, 661
A.2d 1169, 1174 (Md. 1995). Actual malice is established only if the plaintiff can show that the
defendant published the statements with actual knowledge of their falsity or with reckless
disregard 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 and
matters of public interest. See New York Times Co., 376 U.S. at 278-79; Capital-Gazette
Newspapers, 445 A.2d at 1043. In this context, even erroneous statements are protected when
honestly made are protected, a policy which fosters frank debate and dialogue.
Further, when the challenged statements are reports on legal proceedings, as some are
here, Maryland recognizes a qualified privilege for fair and substantially accurate reports. In the
modern view, this protects the statements regardless of the state of mind of the publisher. See
Chesapeake 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 15
A plaintiff cannot defeat summary judgment in a defamation case simply by asserting
that 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 in
an 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 same
legal standards as allegations of defamation. See Piscatelli, 35 A.3d at 1146-47. Separate
analysis of those claims is therefore unnecessary.
II.
Ugwuonye is a public figure. The Circuit Court for Montgomery County explicitly found
him to be such in a related proceeding involving many of the same statements sued upon here.4
Ugwuonye is, thus, collaterally estopped from arguing otherwise here. See Guccione v. Hustler
Magazine, 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 estopped
from claiming otherwise in case at hand).5 Indeed, Ugwuonye himself acknowledges that he has
achieved 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 Institute
for International Development (see Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 70) ¶ 15), and that he has
maintained power and influence on the basis of his education and high-profile positions,
-------------- footnotes
4 See Ugwuonye v. Aluko, et al., No. 314155V. Mobolaji Aluko, originally a defendant in the
present action, was voluntarily dismissed in July 2009, but Ugwuonye then filed the state court
action against him.
5 Under Maryland law, collateral estoppel applies when, as here: (1) the issue sought to be
precluded 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 prior
proceeding; (4) the proceeding was final and valid; and (5) the party against whom estoppel is
asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. See Campbell v. Lake Hallowell
Homeowners 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 15
including serving as counsel to the World Bank and to the Government of Nigeria in several high
profile cases. He avers that he is an attorney who has competed "at the highest echelon of the
legal profession worldwide" (id. ¶ 17). His testimony about speaking to hundreds or thousands
of 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 the
community. See Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 155 (1967). The allegedly
defamatory statements in this case (including regarding high-level embassy transactions and
dealings between the U.S. and Nigerian Governments), as noted by the Circuit Court for
Montgomery 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 evidence
that Sowore made the challenged statements with actual malice—that is, with actual knowledge
of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth. See Masson v The New Yorker
Magazine, 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 injure
the official; the publisher acted negligently; the publisher acted in reliance on the
unverified statement of a third party without personal knowledge of the subject
matter of the defamatory statement; or the publisher acted without undertaking the
investigation 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 evidence
that 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 15
The Court considers each of the statements.6
III.
The first three statements appeared in a March 5, 2009 Saharareporters.com article. The
article, headlined "Property scandal rocks Nigerian Embassy in Washington DC; former
Ambassador Obiozor fingered," reports on a variety of real estate transactions in the
Washington, DC area involving the Nigerian Embassy, and questions the reported values of a
number of real estate sales. The article notes that Ugwuonye provided legal assistance to the
Embassy in connection with these transactions. The article further states that Ugwuonye
withheld the Embassy's $1.5 million IRS tax refund due from the sales, allegedly because the
Nigerian government owed him legal fees for representing Nigerian officials in unrelated
litigation. The article also reports that Ugwuonye has previously faced attorney disciplinary
proceedings.
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 asked
Ugwuonye why he had withheld the refund, to which Ugwuonye responded that he withheld it as
a fee to compensate him for previous litigation work for the Embassy and that he and the
Nigerian Government were in the midst of negotiating with respect to the fee. Ugwuonye
acknowledges that he discussed the Embassy transactions with Sowore, but claims he did not get
to explain his side of the story; he says he simply told Sowore there was no fraud. However,
-------------- footnote
6 The Court confines its consideration to statements pled in the Second Amended Complaint. In
his opposition to Sowore's Motion for Summary Judgment, Ugwuonye appears to allege that
additional 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 has
in no way suggested why these late-remembered statements were not set forth in the Second
Amended Complaint.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 113 Filed 11/26/12 Page 7 of 15
even if Ugwuonye disputes that he told Sowore he was withholding the tax refund as payment
for previous legal work, it is undisputed that this is what Ugwuonye actually did. He withheld
the refund. Ugwuonye says as much in the papers he has submitted to the Court, suggesting that
the Nigerian Government initially agreed that he could settle its outstanding legal bills by
holding a tax refund due to the Embassy; that he thought he could disburse the refund after being
paid by other sources (and therefore, as he testified in his deposition, that he promised the
Embassy 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 further
admits that a dispute then arose with the Embassy regarding the application of the tax refund to
his fees, and states that this dispute was part of a larger intra-Embassy quarrel that was resolved
when 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 filed
against him, one—to be sure—which was ultimately dismissed.
Against this background, the specific statements Ugwuonye alleges to be defamatory are
these:
(1) "[Plaintiff] said he apprised [then Ambassador] Obiozor over his seizure of the
embassy's tax refund, fueling speculation that Obiozor tacitly approved the seizure
for pecuniary reasons as he did not try to retrieve the money from [Plaintiff] before he
left the U.S."
Given the facts just reviewed, this statement can hardly be considered defamatory. Quite
simply, it involves facts that Ugwuonye does not dispute—that he withheld over a million dollars
of the Nigerian Embassy's tax refund with the Nigerian Embassy's knowledge. The statement
could 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 some
professional troubles relating to his competence and manner of handling client
monies."
This statement involves the same undisputed facts, namely Ugwuonye's withholding of
the Embassy's tax refund. In addition, it contains privileged reporting regarding Ugwuonye's
past professional misconduct proceedings. Unquestionably a disciplinary matter came before the
Maryland Court of Appeals, which considered potential misconduct involving two of
Ugwuonye's matters, and which found that Ugwuonye had in fact violated various provisions of
the code of professional conduct, including provisions regarding competence, fees and
safekeeping 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 were
not, Ugwuonye has failed to proffer any evidence that this statement—or any part of it—was
made 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 reporting
on Ugwuonye's past professional misconduct hearings. Again, most importantly, Ugwuonye has
failed to offer evidence that Sowore made this statement with anything approaching actual
malice.
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. The
article discusses the Nigerian Embassy real estate transactions and Ugwuonye's seizure of the
tax refund. It also speaks of Ugwuonye's and the Nigerian Government's "habit" of using libel
lawsuits 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 15
Mobolaji Aluko, in which the state judge granted Aluko's motion for summary judgment. The
specific challenged statements made by Sowore are these:
(4) "Falsely stated that Plaintiff made a habit of using libel lawsuits to suppress public
debate about the controversial sale of properties belonging to the Nigerian embassy in
Washington DC and Maryland."
By the time this article was published, Ugwuonye had indeed brought multiple lawsuits
based on the March 2009 piece questioning the circumstances of the sale of Nigerian Embassy
properties. 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 actual
malice.
(5) "Falsely stated or clearly insinuated or implied that Plaintiff withheld the funds of his
clients 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 not
delivering 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 frivolous
lawsuit."
Ugwuonye offers no opposition to summary judgment as to this statement. Even so, the
Court finds that the statement is substantially true and could not have been made with malice. In
addition, it was a privileged report on a legal proceeding. Ugwuonye initially included Aluko as
a defendant in the present case. The Court allowed Ugwuonye to voluntarily dismiss Aluko
based 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 15
Aluko's attorneys fees, given that Ugwuonye had filed the suit alleging diversity of citizenship
jurisdiction 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 it
was in the nature of a sanction because Ugwuonye, a licensed attorney, had filed a lawsuit that
he knew or should have known this Court had no jurisdiction to hear. The fact that Sowore may
have characterized Ugwuonye's suit as "frivolous" was without a doubt fair comment. But even
if his report of the import of the Court's order was not entirely accurate, it is clear that minor
technical inaccuracies may occur in the course of reporting on legal proceedings without giving
rise 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., Circuit
Court of Maryland for Montgomery County, Case No. 314155-V), Defendant falsely
stated that the state court found that the allegation of fraud made against Plaintiff was
true."
Ugwuonye does not attempt to pursue this allegation in his Opposition and for good
reason. 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 Nigerian
Government in Maryland, Defendant Sowore mischaracterized the power of attorney
granted to Plaintiff by his client, and falsely alleged that the reason Plaintiff obtained
such power of attorney was to enable him to control the funds belonging to the
Nigerian government to Plaintiff's advantage, and that armed with the power of
attorney, 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 his
client'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 15
could find that Sowore made this statement with actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless
disregard for the truth.
(9) "Referring to this lawsuit, Defendant falsely stated and/or implied that the
Government of Nigeria had given funds to the Plaintiff and had a pact with the
Plaintiff aimed at filing this suit for the purpose of suppressing or repressing the
freedoms of Nigerian citizens."
In his opposition, Ugwuonye argues that language such as this "betrays the tension that
has existed" between Sowore and Ugwuonye over the years. This statement is of dubious
relevance. Even if there truly was tension between the two, it would not satisfy the requirement
of actual malice. Actual malice cannot be established by demonstrating that "the publisher acted
of 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 with
knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth. On the evidence before the
Court, Ugwuonye has made no such demonstration. Sowore has reported on the activities of the
Nigerian Government for some time, and has been sued more than once on the basis of such
reporting. Sowore contends that an individual who brought one of these suits against him is now
working in a high-level Nigerian Government position. Ugwuonye does not dispute that he was
counsel for high-level Nigerian Government transactions, and has further stated that the
disagreement over the tax refund was tied to a larger Embassy dispute that was only resolved
with the firing of an Ambassador, suggesting that Ugwuonye may well have been supported in
his litigation by someone within the Nigerian Government. Sowore could fairly opine that the
Nigerian Government was and is behind this suit and others. No reasonable trier of fact could
find 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 of
the state court against Plaintiff."
Ugwuonye's Second Amended Complaint mischaracterizes the July 23 article, which by
no construction reads as if it is the judgment of the Circuit Court of Maryland against
Ugwuonye. In any case, Ugwuonye does not attempt to oppose Sowore's motion for summary
judgment 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. The
article, which covered much the same ground as previous articles, focuses on Ugwuonye's
companies, calling them "forfeited," stating that they were revived at the same time Ugwuonye
was working for the Nigerian Embassy, and reporting that a source at the Maryland State
Comptroller referred to Ugwuonye as a "deadbeat resident agent."
Sowore has testified that he wrote this article based on evidence produced in the state
court case and on further research that that evidence generated. Sowore says he initially learned
that Ugwuonye had two companies, ECU Law and ECU Associates, P.C., which, according to
public records Sowore investigated, had their corporate charters forfeited more than once for
failure to pay taxes. Sowore also determined that the records showed that the dates of
reinstatement of the companies coincided with the times Ugwuonye was engaged by the
Nigerian Embassy to carry out the real estate transactions mentioned in the March 5, 2009
article. Sowore says he contacted the Maryland State Comptroller to seek additional information
regarding Ugwuonye's companies, and it was then he was told by an individual there that
Ugwuonye was a "deadbeat resident agent," obviously referring to the multiple forfeitures of his
corporate 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 15
merely argues that Sowore had control over the article and that it defames him. The specific
statements Ugwuonye deems defamatory are as follows:
(11) "Falsely stated or implied that Plaintiff obtained a power of attorney from his
client for the purpose of improperly withholding his client's funds."
Based on the same rationale discussed in respect to Statements 5 and 8, no reasonable
trier 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 a
deceptive and improper manner for the purpose of Nigerian Government's real estate
transaction."
Ugwuonye mischaracterizes the article. The article states that Ugwuonye revived his
companies 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 the
charter of his companies in a deceptive or improper manner. The actual statements, taken in
context, 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 in
Maryland made disparaging remarks against the person of Plaintiff and his business
practices."
Sowore offers sworn testimony that statement 13 is an accurate report of his exchange
with a Maryland State Comptroller employee, who told him that Ugwuonye was a "deadbeat
resident agent" because his corporate charters had been repeatedly forfeited based on failure to
pay taxes. Ugwuonye does not dispute that he failed to pay taxes for his companies or that his
corporate 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 pay
debts 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 15
characterize Ugwuonye's situation with respect to the corporate charters. This statement could
not have been made with actual malice.
VI.
Statement 14, which refers to an August 3, 2010 Sahareporters.com article bearing the
byline 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 a
person that Plaintiff [sic] engages in acts that involve moral turpitude."
Sowore has testified that the article was widely circulated in Nigerian online forums
before he published it. Ugwuonye asserts in his opposition that Sowore received this article from
Aluko and published it without doing any investigation. Ugwuonye also asserts that Sowore
initially attempted to get an individual named Carlisle Umunnah to publish the article on his
website, but that Umunnah declined because it was a "false story" and specifically told Sowore
not to publish it.8
The article in question was written by Ugwuonye's sister, who has testified she believes
the information in the article is true. Sowore, when he published the report, also believed it was
true, and had little cause to believe otherwise. The statement, after all, came from Ugwuonye's
sister.
Thus, even if Sowore knew that Ugwuonye and Ifesinachi were on bad terms, the fact
that the sister of a public figure was making such extreme allegations against her brother—a
public 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
------------ footnotes
7 The Court, in order to avoid confusion and intending no disrespect, will refer to Ifesinachi
Ugwuonye by her first name.
8 What Umunnah may have said to Sowore and when he said it is hardly relevant to whether or
not the publication was defamatory. Similarly, whether Aluko was the source of the article has
no relevance to that question.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 113 Filed 11/26/12 Page 15 of 15
was 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 or
wrong, publication of the statement could not have been made with reckless disregard of the fact
that it was a sister making the allegations. Beyond that, from a policy standpoint it would seem
distinctly inappropriate and unfair to sustain a defamation claim against a third-party for
publishing an article written by the complainant's own sister, particularly when the complainant
has 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 Summary
Judgment as to all counts. A separate Order will ISSUE.
/s/ ___
PETER J. MESSITTE
November 20, 2012
UNITED 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