Opinion ID: 2555874
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Complaint in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County.

Text: On 18 June 2007, Respondents filed a class action suit on behalf of several hundred homeowners, [4] in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, alleging that the Metropolitan Money Store, along with several other companies and real estate professionals, engaged in mortgage fraud. Norman, 192 Md.App. at 411, 994 A.2d at 1022-23. Without identifying which Sussex owners or employees participated individually and actually in the mortgage rescue scam, Respondents averred broadly that Sussex, a title company, aided and abetted the scam by closing . . . transactions in exchange for . . . repeat business and fees. . . . Norman posits, for purposes of his later defamation action, that Respondents provided to the press a copy of the complaint on the same day it was filed, but before it was filed. He infers this occurred because, on the filing day, a Baltimore Sun reporter telephoned Chaudhry and read verbatim to Chaudhry passages from the complaint. Norman highlights further that [the Circuit Court for] Prince George's County . . . does not maintain an [online] case management system that would allow [the reporter] to monitor filings or obtain copies of filed documents [online]. Respondents do not contest this claim. The day following filing of the proposed class action suit, 19 June 2007, The Baltimore Sun published an article about the scam lawsuit. In particular, the article explained that the complaint named at least six defendants, including Sussex. The article quoted Respondent Peter Holland as saying, without reference to any particular individual or company, [w]e're talking about bad people. In the final paragraphs, the article, quoting from the complaint, reiterated that the defendants' sole motive was to enrich their extravagant lifestyles at the expense of hardworking Marylanders. . . . Less than a month later, on 12 July 2007, The Washington Post published an article regarding the lawsuit. It mentioned, in passing, that apparently Sussex was not answering its phones at its offices. It quoted Respondent Philip Robinson as stating that the defendants' sole motive seemed to be to enrich their lavish lifestyles as opposed to saving the homes of the vulnerable homeowners from foreclosure. [5]