You are on page 1of 5

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS

OF MARYLAND

BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Appellant

September Term, 2014:


Nos: 1553 and 2099

v.
AARON J. WALKER, ESQ., ET AL.
Appellees

September Term, 2015:


No. 365
Consolidated Appeals

APPELLEE WALKERS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENT TO


APPELLEE WALKERS BRIEF
NOW COMES Appellee Aaron J. Walker, Esq., and files this Motion for Leave to
File a Supplement to his Appellees Brief and states the following:
1. Mr. Walker seeks leave to file a supplement to his Appellees Brief that would inform this
Court of additional events that may render part of this appeal moot.
2. Specifically, Mr. Walker would like to submit documents that show the following:
a. The Appellant has begun a second and highly duplicative suit against Messrs. Walker,
Hoge, Akbar and others entitled Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al (II), No.
403868V (Md. Mont. Co. Cir. Ct. 2015) in Montgomery County Circuit Court.
b. On January 12, 2016, Judge Mason granted a motion to dismiss and a partial summary
judgment in Mr. Walkers favor in that case.

c. As part of that ruling, Judge Mason dismissed a claim for false light against Mr. Walker
based on the theory that the Appellant was defamation proof. 1 That is, because of Mr.
Kimberlins extensive criminal history and other malfeasance found in the case reports,
Mr. Kimberlin has such a poor reputation that no further damage to it was possible at the
time of an otherwise [allegedly] libelous publication. Jackson v. Longcope, 394 Mass.
577, 580 (1985).2
3. As Mr. Walker would argue in the supplement, this ruling would demonstrate that even a
victory for the Appellant in relation to defamation and false light in the instant appeal is
likely to be a pyrrhic one. Even if the Appellant is allowed to go back to Montgomery
County Circuit Court to retry these claims, the case is likely to be dismissed before trial
based on that ruling alone. Therefore, even if this Court believed that in the instant case
the lower court erred in granting judgment at trial under Md. Rule 2-519 for the counts of
defamation and false light, it would at worst be a harmless error.
4. Further, such arguments could not have been integrated into the original brief, because
this ruling had not come down at that time.
5. Mr. Walker believes that this supplement would aid this Court in reaching a just and
equitable ruling, and respectfully requests that he be allowed to file such a supplement.

1 This doctrine applies to false light actions as well as defamation claims because [a]n

allegation of false light must meet the same legal standards as an allegation of
defamation. Piscatelli v. Van Smith, 424 Md. 294, 35 A.3d 1140, 1146-47 (2012)
2 See also, Ray v. Time, Inc., 452 F. Supp. 618, 622 (W.D. Tenn. 1976) (declaring that
[Plaintiff] is a convicted habitual criminal and is so unlikely to be able to recover
damages to his reputation as to warrant dismissal of his libel claim in the light of First
Amendment considerations).
2

WHEREFORE, this Court should grant Mr. Walker leave to file a supplement to his
Appellees brief, solely for the purpose of informing this Court of the ruling below and its
effect on this case; and grant all other relief that is appropriate.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016Respectfully submitted,

Aaron J. Walker, Esq.


(Va Bar# 48882)
P.O. Box 3075
Manassas, Virginia 20108
Phone: (703) 216-0455
(no fax)
AaronJW1972@gmail.com

CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT AND COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 8-112


1. This motion contains 574 words, excluding the parts of the motion exempted from the
word count by Rule 8-503.
2. This motion complies with the font, spacing, and type size requirements stated in Rule 8112. Specifically this document was typed in Times New Roman, 13-point font.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on Tuesday, January 26, 2016, I served copies of the Motion for Leave,
Motion to Dismiss and Appellees Brief on Brett Kimberlin at 8100 Beech Tree Road,
Bethesda, Maryland 20817, via U. S. Mail, on the following co-Appellees via email by
their consent through their counsel Patrick Ostronic, Esq.; and by email on Ali Akbar
with his consent.

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS


OF MARYLAND

BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Appellant

September Term, 2014:


Nos: 1553 and 2099

v.
September Term, 2015:
No. 365

AARON J. WALKER, ESQ., ET AL.


Appellees

Consolidated Appeals

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENT


Upon consideration of the Appellee Walkers Motion for Leave to File Supplement
to the Appellees Brief, and any other filing in support or opposition thereto, it is this
day of

, 2016, hereby

ORDERED that Appellee Walker is hereby granted leave to file a Supplement to


his Brief discussing the January 12, 2016 order in Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club,
et al (II), No. 403868V (Md. Mont. Co. Cir. Ct. 2015) that shall not exceed fifteen pages
in length; and it is further
4

ORDERED that if Appellee Walker files such a Supplement, the Appellant and the
other Appellees shall be allowed to file a response in opposition or support thereof that
shall not exceed fifteen pages in length; and it is further
ORDERED that Mr. Walker will be allowed to file a Reply to such responses
which shall not exceed ten pages in length.

__________________________________________
Judges, Court of Special Appeals