Opinion ID: 2338779
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Complaint and its Dismissal

Text: On June 25, 1996, Ramunno filed suit in the Superior Court, asserting claims of libel and civil conspiracy against Cawley, MBNA, Gannett Co., and Barrish. As to Cawley and MBNA (collectively, the MBNA Defendants), the complaint alleged an intention on their part to cast Ramunno in a false and humiliating light through inaccurate statements contained in the letter. More specifically, the complaint alleged libel in the form of Cawley's description of Ramunno's holdings, as well as his statement in this context that Ramunno has done well through poorly-maintained surface parking lots and rental homes.... In pertinent part, as to the MBNA Defendants, the complaint reads as follows: [Cawley's] letter contained false statements that clearly and intentionally were intended to infer [sic] that Ramunno was a slumlord and that Ramunno was exploiting the poor people of the Eastside of Wilmington and owned a substantial number [sic] of slum and/or substandard tenement or rental housing.... At the time Cawley and MBNA made said false and malicious statements, they knew that the above statements were totally false since they knew that out of the 70 parcels Ramunno owned, 65 parcels were either parking lots, vacant lots or commercial properties and only five parcels were houses. (In fact, four houses were vacant and only one house was even occupied.) As to Gannett Co. and Barrish (collectively, the Gannett Defendants), the complaint alleged that the Gannett Defendants knew that Cawley's letter contained false statements and that MBNA was trying to portray Ramunno as a slumlord. It is uncontested that it was Ramunno who injected the term slumlord into the controversy, but he claims the inference is irresistible without his supplying the term, given the context. Ramunno claimed that the Gannett Defendants maliciously caused him to be viewed as a slumlord by including that term in its headline, above an article that contained inaccurate descriptions of his land holdings. In pertinent part, as to the Gannett Defendants, the complaint reads as follows: Ramunno explained to Barrish that of those five houses, four were vacant and only one house was occupied .... Ramunno told Barrish that Cawley was trying to falsely and maliciously make Ramunno look like a slumlord and that was ridiculous and was a total fabrication .... Barrish agreed that Cawley was trying to make Ramunno look like a slumlord and Barrish agreed and admitted that that was ridiculous and that Ramunno was certainly not a slumlord. ... In total disregard of the truth, Barrish maliciously and intentionally caused Ramunno to be viewed as a slumlord as Cawley intended by stating twice in the story that Ramunno owned some 70 parcels without informing the readers of the truth [about his property holdings].... Although Barrish agreed and admitted that renting one house is a far cry from being a slumlord, he intentionally did not state in his news story that only one house (or one-half of a house) was being rented.... [A]s part of Cawley's & MBNA's premeditated plan to defame Ramunno's character in the eyes of the public, Cawley & MBNA used their influence and power to cause the codefendant Gannett to proclaim Ramunno a slumlord in a totally inappropriate front page banner headlines [sic].... The Defendants knew that Ramunno was not a slumlord and had never exploited the poor people of the Eastside [or] anywhere else, but nevertheless falsely and maliciously proclaimed him as a slumlord as part of their premeditated plan to defame his character and his reputation in the community.... As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' false and malicious libelous statements the Defendants have defamed Plaintiff's character and reputation in the community.... Finally, in addition to the libel claims, the complaint alleged that the Gannett Defendants conspired with the MBNA Defendants to cast Ramunno as a slumlord in the public eye. On July 22, 1996, the defendants moved pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Ramunno's complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. On December 12, 1996, the Superior Court granted the motion, holding that, as a matter of law, all the statements in question and the cartoon were non-actionable. After finding that Ramunno's complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to state a claim for libel, the Superior Court dismissed as well his claim for civil conspiracy, citing the lack of any underlying tort. Ramunno appeals this decision.