You are on page 1of 25

Plaintiffs request for expedited discovery also lacks merit.

Discovery has already begun and thus the motion for expedited discovery should be denied as moot. Even if this Court were inclined to enjoin any disparagement during the pendency of this litigation, any such order should be mutual it would be inherently unfair to subject Defendants to an order limiting their freedom of speech and ability to defend themselves against statements by Plaintiff unless Plaintiff also was ordered not to disparage Defendants. The following review of the allegations in the Complaint demonstrates that none of the statements referenced by Plaintiff are actionable, and, in any event, non-parties not Defendants made the statements at issue. The alleged statements attached to Plaintiffs Motion are all independent nonparty sources of information. Defendants do not own the jgw-sucks.com (jgw-sucks site) and jgwentworth-scam.com (jgw-scam site) websites listed in the Complaint. Plaintiffs Complaint admits that the internet contains the following links (Exhibits are attached to Plaintiffs Motion). We have listed Plaintiffs exhibits and ask the Court to take judicial notice of the following websites: Exhibit 1 1. Topic: JGW Awful Customer Service URL: http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/jg-wentworth-savannah-georgiac475165.html Originating website: http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com (rated #1 as the most trusted and popular consumer complaints website.) See Exhibit 1. Exhibit 2 2. Topic: They (JGW) cannot be allowed to get away with this.

URL: http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/jg-wentworth-c465423.html Originating website: http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com . See Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3 3. Topic: J.G. Wentworth Really Screwed Me Over and Over!!!! URL: http://www.ripoffreport.com/financial-services/j-g-wentworth-321-he/j-gwentworth-321-henderson-5ez64.htm Originating website: http://www.ripoffreport.com (Online since September 1, 1999. Over 1 million complaints filed online). See Exhibit 3. Exhibit 4

4.

Topic: J.G. Wentworth and Peachtree Deceptive Sales Practices?!? URL: http://www.ripoffreport.com/financial-services/j-g-wentworth-peacht/j-gwentworth-peachtree-sett-b40b4.htm Originating website: http://www.ripoffreport.com . See Exhibit 4.

Exhibit 5 5. Topic: A.M. Best Considers Dropping J.G. Wentworth Financial Ratings Is Bankruptcy On Its Way? URL: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20111010005989/en/A.M.-PlacesRatings-321-Henderson-Receivables-LLC Originating website: http://BusinessWire.com . See Exhibit 5. Exhibit 6 6. Other Ruthless Structured Settlement Companies

http://jgwentworth-scam.com/2011/09/03/other-ruthless-structured-settlementcompanies/

A.

Topic: RSL Funding aka Rapid Settlement Rapid Settlement shows up at prospects house in an effort to pressure them to sign their contract URL: http://www.ripoffreport.com/financial-services/rapid-settlements/rapidsettlements-they-been-ha-5f3fy.htm Originating website: http://www.ripoffreport.com . See Exhibit 6A.

B.

Topic: Woodbridge Investments These Guys Stalk the Young and Innocent URL: http://jgwentworth-scam.com/wpcontent/uploads/2011/09/Woodbridge_Investments-PARASITES.pdf Author: Woodbridge Investments President Robert H. Shapiro. See Exhibit 6B. Exhibit 7

7.

Peachtree Settlement Funding Complaints http://jgwentworth-scam.com/wpcontent/uploads/2011/09/Woodbridge_Investments-PARASITES.pdf Content: see Exhibit 7

A. Peachtree Lies To Its Customers http://www.uslaw.com/library/Litigation/Peachtree_Settlement_Funding_Continues_Lie Consumers.php?item=219072 . See Exhibit 7A - Author: John Darer (Same author who J.G. Wentworth uses in their allegations against Defendants). B. Topic: Did Peachtree Settlement Funding Lie to This Annuitant? URL: http://security.feedfury.com/content/45153679-did-peachtree-settlement-funding- lieto-this-annuitant.html. See Exhibit 7B - Author: John Darer (Same author who J.G.

Wentworth references multiple times as a source in their allegations against Defendants). C. Topic: Peachtree Settlement employee This company breaks so many laws and treats their employees like crap. URL: http://www.ripoffreport.com/cash-services/joe-simmons-peachtre/joe- simmonspeachtreesettleme-ez98b.htm. See Exhibit 7C (website: http://RipOffReport.com ). D. Topic: Client Says that Peachtree Settlement Funding Ripped Him Off URL: http://www.ripoffreport.com/bbb-better-business-bureau/peachtreesettlement/peachtree-settlement-funding-c-f376n.htm. See Exhibit 7D. E. Topic: Peachtree Settlement Funding are Thieves URL: http://www.ripoffreport.com/financial-services/peachtree-settlement/peachtreefunding-peachtree-s-f6cwy.htm Originating website: http://RipOffReport.com . See Exhibit 7E. Exhibit 8 8. Topic: Cancellation Letters That J.G. Wentworth Send Their Clients: URL: http://jgwentworth-scam.com/2011/09/03/letters-they-send/ . See Exhibit 8. A. Topic: J.G. Wentworth Cancellation Letter #1 URL:
http://structuredsettlements.typepad.com/structured_settlements_4r/files/jg_wentworth_letter _to_fl_structured_settlement_annuitant_sept_17_2008.pdf

Originating website: John Darers blog (Same author who J.G. Wentworth references multiple times as a source in their allegations against the Defendants. See Exhibit 8A

B. Topic: J.G. Wentworth Cancellation Letter #2 URL: http://jgwentworth-scam.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/JGW-CancellationLetter-09-12-08.pdf Originating author: JG Wentworth. See Exhibit 8B. C. Topic: Court Denies Settlement to J.G. Wentworth/321 Henderson URL:http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050416/NEWS/304169 9 90&cid=sitesearch Originating website: http://www.PoconoRecord.com . See Exhibit 8C. D. Topic: Insurer Claims That JG Wentworth Employs Deception URL: http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/1998/06/08/story1.html?page=all Originating website: Philadelphia Business Journal http://www.bizjournals.com . See Exhibit 8D. E. Topic: Wentworth Loses Case Judge Writes Wentworth must suffer the loss occasioned by its overreaching and misconduct in this transaction URL:http://www.kyeb.uscourts.gov/opin/leeopin/006067%20GOINS%20(2002)%20Order.htm Originating Website: U. S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Kentucky. See Exhibit 8E. F. Topic: Structured Settlements 4Real Blog (John Darer) Places J.G. Wentworth in the Hall of Shame URL:http://structuredsettlements.typepad.com/structured_settlements_4r/2006/03/structure d_sett_1.html Originating website: John Darers blog. See Exhibit 8F. G. Topic: JG Wentworth Exposed! URL:http://structuredsettlements.typepad.com/structured_settlements_4r/2006/06/jg_went 6

worth_al.html Originating website: John Darers blog. See Exhibit 8G. H. Topic: J.G. Wentworth Loses Another Case (10/06) URL:http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/CaseDecisionNY.jsp?id=1202504178360&slret urn=1 Originating website: New York Law Journal. See Exhibit 8H. I. Topic: Notaries Complaining That JG Wentworth Isnt Paying Them for Their Work URL:http://www.notaryrotary.com/archive/forum/2006/May/JG_WENTWORTH_UPDAT E.html Originating website: http://www.NotaryRotary.com . See Exhibit 8I J. Topic: Article Discussing the JG Wentworth Practice of Offering Low Quotes URL:http://structuredsettlements.typepad.com/structured_settlements_4r/2008/03/whydoesnt-jg-w.html Originating website: John Darers blog. See Exhibit 8J. K. Topic: Professionals Complaining That They Arent Getting Paid by J.G. Wentworth! URL:http://www.notaryrotary.com/archive/forum/2005/June/J_G_Wentworth.html . See Exhibit 8K. L. Topic: JG Wentworth Tax Fraud Scandal http://faculty.law.wayne.edu/mcintyre/text/tax_lawyer_fraud.pdf (currently offline) http://jgwentworth-scam.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/tax_lawyer_fraud.pdf Originating website: Wayne State University - Legal Department. See Exhibit 8L.

Exhibit 9 9. Topic: J.G. Wentworth Better Business Bureau Report Showing 41 Complaints

URL: http://jgwentworth-scam.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/JGW-BBB-March-212011-41-COMPLAINTS.pdf Originating website: The Better Business Bureau. See Exhibit 9. Exhibit 10 10. Topic: November 4, 2008 J.G. Wentworth Loses Satisfactory Rating from the Better Business Bureau URL: http://jgwentworth-scam.com/2011/09/03/november-4-2008-j-g-wentworth-losessatisfactory-rating-from-the-better-business-bureau/ Originating website: Better Business Bureau. See Exhibit 10. Exhibit 11 11. Topic: November 28, 2008 J.G. Wentworth Gasping its Last Breath? URL: http://jgwentworth-scam.com/2011/09/03/november-28-2008-j-g-wentworthgasping-its-last-breath/ . See Exhibit 11. A. Topic: Standard and Poors Ratings Service Downgraded the Long-Term Counterparty Credit Rating on J.G. Wentworth Inc. URL: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inqphillydeals/SP_says_JG_Wentworth_needs_more_capital_cuts_credit_ratings.html Originating website: http://www.philly.com . See Exhibit 11A. Exhibit 12 12. Topic: What is it Like Working at J.G. Wentworth? Employee writes DONT WORK HERE AND DONT DO BUSINESS WITH THESE PEOPLE! URL: http://jgwentworth-scam.com/2011/09/03/what-is-it-like-working-at-j-g-wentworth/ 8

Originating website: Jobvent.com Link: http://www.jobitorial.com/j-g-wentworth-jobreviews-C2503 . See Exhibit 12A. Exhibit 13 13. Topic: J.G. Wentworths Wilkopedia Link from April 7, 2010 Paragraph Discussing J.G. Wentworths bankruptcy. URL: http://jgwentworth-scam.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/wiki.pdf . See Exhibit 13. Exhibit 14

14. Articled discussing J.G. Wentworth charging clients 70% rates. URL: http://jgwentworth-scam.com/2011/09/03/an-internal-revenue-service-irs-article/ . See Exhibit 14. A. Topic: SPITZER ANNOUNCES FIRST-OF-ITS-KIND AGREEMENT TO PROTECT CONSUMERS {against J.G.Wentworth} WHO WIN, AND THEN SELL, PERSONAL INJURY SETTLEMENTS URL: http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/1999/jul/jul29b_99.html Originating website: Office of The Attorney General State of New York http://www.ag.ny.gov . See Exhibit 14A.

B. Topic: An IRS Article which discusses a structured settlement factoring company that exploited clients by as much as 70%! That sounds a lot like they are discussing J.G. Wentworth. URL: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=185990,00.html Website: www.IRS.gov . See Exhibit 14B. 9

Exhibit 15 15. 23 Complaints!!! From the major complaint websites. A. Topic: Client Feels Defrauded by J.G. Wentworth URL: http://www.ripoffreport.com/financial-services/j-g-wentworth-hender/j-gwentworth-henderson-re-64x2b.htm . See Exhibit 15A. B. Topic: J.G. Wentworth Are Liars and Make False Promises That They Wont Keep URL: http://www.ripoffreport.com/financial-services/j-g-wentworth/j-g-wentworth-liedand-about-g-53mea.htm . See Exhibit 15B. C. Topic: Client is Disgusted and Wants to Start a Class Action AgainstJ.G. Wentworth URL: http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/jg-wentworth-kansas-city-missouric209486.html See Exhibit 15B

D. Topic: Another J.G. Wentworth Client Who Feels Defrauded URL: http://www.ripoffreport.com/loans/j-g-wentworth-321-he/j-g-wentworth-321henderson-r-388f4.htm . See Exhibit 15D. E. Topic: Clients Nightmare Story Then Told Too-Bad-Youre-Stuck-With-Us By J.G. Wentworth URL: http://www.ripoffreport.com/cash-services/j-g-wentworth-321-he/j-g-wentworth321-henderson-cfff6.htm. See Exhibit 15E.

10

F. Topic: Client Preyed on and Harassed By J.G. Wentworth URL:http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/jg-wentworth-c188493.html . See Exhibit 15F. G. Topic: Client So Upset With J.G. Wentworth That They Contacted the FBI URL:http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/jg-wentworth-many-pennsylvaniac140961.html. See Exhibit 15G. H. Topic: Client Demanding That People Rise Up and Start Class Action Lawsuit URL:http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/j-g-wentworth-fountain-valleycalifornia-c358394.html. See Exhibit 15H. I. Topic: Client Says They Are a Ruthless Company URL: http://www.ripoffreport.com/cash-services/j-g-wentworth-321-he/j-g-wentworth321-henderson-5e2f7.htm. See Exhibit 15I. J. Topic: Client Strongly Recommends Never Doing Business With J.G. WSentworth URL: http://www.ripoffreport.com/financial-services/j-g-wentworth-321-he/j-gwentworth-321-henderson-5ez64.htm. See Exhibit 15J. K. Topic: Client Was Taken Advantage Of By J.G. Wentworth URL: http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/jg-wentworth-c265922.html . See Exhibit 15K.

11

L. Topic: J.G. Wentworth Lawyers Never Showed Up to Represent Client URL:http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/jg-wentworth-new-jerseyc303248.html. See Exhibit 15L. M. Topic: J.G. Wentworth Misrepresentation of Contract and Interest Fees to Mentally Diminished Woman URL:http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/jg-wentworth-maine-c335117.html . See Exhibit 15M. N. Topic: Notaries Complaining That J.G. Wentworth Are Not Paying Them For Their URL:http://www.notaryrotary.com/archive/forum/2006/May/JG_WENTWORTH_UPD ATE.html . See Exhibit 15N. O. Topic: Family of Deceased Annuitant Sued by J.G. Wentworth URL:http://statecasefiles.justia.com/documents/ohio/seventh-district-court-ofappeals/2008-ohio-3089.pdf. See Exhibit 15O. P. Topic: Eight More J.G. Wentworth Complaints URL:http://www.complaintsboard.com/?search=J.G.+Wentworth&everything=Everythi ng See Exhibit 15P. Exhibit 16 16. Topic: J.G. Wentworths Wikipedia article (discussing charging clients 70%, bankruptcy, breach of contract, and a Los Angeles county 2011court case that mentions unfair 12

business practices, referring their own attorneys to clients and actions against its own clients included fraud, misrepresentation, and practices that were oppressive and unconscionable. URL: http://jgwentworth-scam.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/J.G.W.-Wiki-013011pdf.pdf Originating website: http://Wikipedia.org . See Exhibit 16. Exhibit 17 17. J.G. Wentworth Issues (See Peachtree Complaints) URL: http://jgwentworth-scam.com/2011/09/03/j-g-wentworth-issues-see-peachtreecomplaints/ . See Exhibit 17. A. Topic: March 21, 2011 BBB Report Showing Multiple Complaints URL: http://jgwentworth-scam.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/JGW-BBB-March-21-2011-41COMPLAINTS.pdf Website: http://www.BBB.org - Better Business Bureau. See Exhibit 17A. B. Topic: Better Business Bureau letter signed by Richard Connely telling client that J.G. Wentworth agrees stop calling/harassing client. URL: http://jgwentworth-scam.com/wpcontent/uploads/2011/09/J.G._Wentworth_Better_Business_Bureau_Complaint.pdf. See Exhibit 17B.

13

None of this information even purports to be a statement by Defendants. The facts stated are all statements by independent nonparties other than Defendants. The alleged statement concerning the recent litigation loss in the case Ceron v. 321 Henderson Receivables, No. B224935, 2011 WL 240243 (Calif. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2011) could not be verified it was not present on the internet to Defendants knowledge.

14

ARGUMENT I. THE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SATISFY ANY OF THE REQUIRED ELEMENTS FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must meet four requirements: 1) a real probability of prevailing on the merits, not merely a remote possibility of doing so; 2) lesser injury would be done to the defendant by granting the injunction than would result to plaintiff by denying it; 3) that plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction was granted; and 4) that the public interest favored an injunction. Fogle v. H & G Rest., Inc., 337 Md. 441, 45557, 654 A.2d 449, 456-57 (1995) (reversing decision granting injunction). The burden of proving facts sufficient to satisfy each of the four required elements rests on the plaintiff, and the failure to prove the existence of even one of the four factors will preclude the grant of preliminary [injunctive] relief. Id. at 456, 654 A.2d at 456. Plaintiff failed to meet any of these requirements. II. NONE OF THE ALLEGED STATEMENTS ARE ACTIONABLE None of the statements referenced by Plaintiff are actionable. Plaintiffs Complaint, which sounds in defamation, also asserts related causes of action such as false light, false advertising and injurious falsehood, however, these other claims may not stand unless the claim also meets the standards of defamation. See Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. 23, 38, 12 A.3d 164, 173 (2011) (quoting Crowley v. Fox Broadcasting Co., 851 F. Supp. 700, 704 (applying Maryland law)). The elements of the cause of action for defamation in Maryland are well settled. [I]n order to make out a prima facie case of defamation the plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant made a defamatory communication, i.e., that he communicated a statement tending to expose the plaintiff to public scorn, hatred, contempt, or ridicule to a third person who reasonably recognized the statement to be defamatory; (2) that the statement was false; (3) that the defendant was at fault 15

in communicating the statement; and (4) that the plaintiff suffered harm. Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. at 37, 12 A.3d at 173 (quoting Agora, Inc. v. Axxess, Inc., 90 F. Supp. 2d 697, 701 (D. Md. 2000) (citing Peroutka v. Streng, 116 Md. App. 301, 311, 695 A.2d 1287, 1293 (1997) and Shapiro v. Masssengill, 105 Md. App. 743, 772, 661 A.2d 202, 216-17 (1995))). As the Piscatelli Court explained, in the context of defamation, a statement is false only when it is not substantially correct. Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. at 37, 12 A.3d at 173 (quoting Batson v. Shiflett, 325 Md. 684, 726, 602 A.2d 1191, 1212 (1992)). The question of whether a statement is defamatory is an issue of law that is determined by the court. Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. at 37-38, 12 A.3d at 172-73 (citing Chesapeake Publishing v. Williams, 339 Md. 285, 296, 661 A.2d 1169, 1174 (1995)). Even if a court were to determine that a particular statement was defamatory, Maryland law recognizes three defenses that, if applicable, bar recovery. Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. at 38, 12 A.3d at 173. First, Maryland law recognizes the qualified privilege to report upon judicial proceedings. Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. at 38, 12 A.3d at 173 (citing Chesapeake Publishing, 339 Md. at 296, 661 A.2d at 1174). Second, Maryland law recognizes the fair comment privilege. Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. at 38, 12 A.3d at 173 (citing A.S. Abell Co. v. Kirby, 227 Md. 267, 272, 274, 176 A.2d 340, 343 (1961)). Third, Maryland law recognizes as a defense to defamation that a person is entitled to express an opinion without liability if the facts from which a defendant forms his or her opinion are given or are readily available and those facts cannot be proved false.... Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. at 39, 12 A.3d at 174 (quoting Peroutka, 116 Md. App. at 320, 695 A.2d at 1297)). The statements cited by Plaintiff are not false or defamatory, and in any event, all three defenses preclude recovery. 16

A.

None of the Statements Are Defamatory.

As a matter of law, none of the statements cited by Plaintiff are defamatory. See Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. at 38, 12 A.3d at 173. Every one of the statements alleged by Plaintiff in its Complaint is from an independent nonparty source cited above. See supra pp. 213. These are facts that were stated by courts and other independent nonparty sources. These facts are available in numerous ways, including through the Internet at the websites cited above. Even if Defendants made any statement of these facts or expressed any opinion about these facts, the statements are not defamatory as a matter of law because they are true factual statements or statements of opinion. Even if one or more of the underlying factual statements were not true, the statements were made by independent nonparty sources, and thus Defendants did not make any statements that are defamatory. B. The Qualified Privilege to Report on Judicial Proceedings Bars Recovery.

The qualified privilege to report upon judicial proceedings precludes recovery here. See Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. at 38, 12 A.3d at 173 (citing Chesapeake Publishing, 339 Md. at 296, 661 A.2d at 1174 (In Maryland, there exists a qualified privilege to report on legal proceedings, even if the story contains defamatory material, as long as the account is fair and substantially accurate.). This privilege is qualified and can be overcome only upon a showing of actual malice under one of two tests. Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. at 38, 12 A.3d at 173. The first is drawn from the United States Supreme Courts landmark ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 27980, 84 S.Ct. 710, 725-26, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). Under this analysis, the privilege is not applicable if the defendant knew that the republished statements were false or acted with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity. Rosenberg v. Helinski, 328 Md. 664, 677-78, 616 A.2d 866, 872-73 (1992); Marchesi v. Franchino, 283 Md. 131, 134-35, 387 A.2d 17

1129, 1130-31 (1978). The second test is based upon the Restatement (Second) of Torts 611, Comment a (1977), and focuses upon the fairness and accuracy of the report. Under this approach, the privilege is applicable as long as the report is accurate and complete or a fair abridgement of the occurrence reported. Rosenberg, 328 Md. at 678, 616 A.2d at 873 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts 611). Maryland favors the latter approach. See, e.g., Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. at 38, 12 A.3d 164 (citing Chesapeake Publishing, 339 Md. at 296-97, 302 n.5, 661 A.2d 1169; Rosenberg, 328 Md. at 678, 616 A.2d 866). Here, the statements at issue relate to judicial proceedings. The facts and opinions can be discerned from independent nonparty sources and were made regarding a matter of public concern, business practices in the structured settlement market. C. The Fair Comment Privilege Bars Recovery.

The fair comment privilege precludes relief. See Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. at 38, 12 A.3d at 174 (citing A.S. Abell Co. v. Kirby, 227 Md. at 272, 274, 176 A.2d at 342-43). Under Maryland law, every member of the community enjoys the privilege to make statements without liability, [to] honestly express a fair and reasonable opinion or comment on matters of legitimate public interest. Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. at 39, 12 A.3d at 174 (quoting A.S. Abell Co. v. Kirby, 227 Md. at 272, 274, 176 A.2d at 342-43). The rationale behind this rule is that such discussion is in the furtherance of an interest of social importance, and therefore it is held entitled to protection even at the expense of uncompensated harm to the plaintiff's reputation. Id. The structured settlement market affects numerous people and is clearly a matter of public concern. Plaintiffs business practices and integrity have been sharply called into question by numerous independent nonparty sources. Even if Defendants commented on such matters, the fair comment privilege bars recovery. 18

D.

The Defense of the Right to Express an Opinion Precludes Recovery.

The right to express an opinion provides another applicable defense to defamation that a person is entitled to express an opinion without liability if the facts from which a defendant forms his or her opinion are given or are readily available and those facts cannot be proved false. See Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. at 39, 12 A.3d at 147 (quoting Peroutka, 116 Md. App. at 320, 695 A.2d at 1297)). Where the defendant makes a factual statement or expresses an opinion based on facts supplied by third parties, the defendant is not liable for the statements if the statement of facts is not defamatory or if both the defendant and the person receiving the communication assume the facts stated are true. See Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. at 39, 12 A.3d at 174 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts 566 Comment c (1976)). Here, Defendants are not even accused of stating facts known only to Defendants; Plaintiff complains that it disagrees with the opinions allegedly expressed by Defendants. The right to express an opinion supersedes Plaintiffs claim. Plaintiff may not like the characterization of its conduct and integrity, but an ordinary person, reading the matter complained of, [would] be likely to understand it as an expression of [opinion] and the factual basis for those opinions are readily ascertainable from the same quotation. Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. at 39, 12 A.3d 174 (quoting A.S. Abell Co. v. Kirby, 227 Md. at 274, 176 A.2d at 343). Expressing a negative opinion of Plaintiffs business practices is clearly an opinion protected by Maryland law. Despite the fact that Plaintiffs entire Complaint rests on the defamation allegations, Plaintiff failed to cite even a single defamation case anywhere in its voluminous Motion. Plaintiff lacks even a remote possibility of prevailing on any defamation claim.

19

III.

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SHOW A REAL PROBABILITY OF PREVAILING ON ANY CAUSE OF ACTION The only two causes of action cited by Plaintiff in its Motion also lack any real

probability that Plaintiff will prevail. On the false advertising claim, the trial court in C.B. Fleet Co. v. SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, L.P., 131 F.3d 430, 434 (4th Cir. 1997), rejected the plaintiffs claim on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to carry its burden to prove that either advertising claim was false. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed this decision. This case therefore provides no support whatsoever for Plaintiffs Motion. Here, Plaintiff failed to prove any alleged advertising claim was false and thus Plaintiffs false advertising cause of action lacks merit. On the Maryland Consumer Protection Act claim, the Court of Special Appeals in Hallowell v. Citaramanis, 88 Md. App. 160, 172, 594 A.2d 591, 597 (1991), reversed the trial courts judgment awarding the plaintiff damages under Maryland Code, Commercial Law, Section 13-308, on the grounds that the plaintiff did not prove actual damages. This case therefore undermines, rather than supports, Plaintiffs Motion. Here, Plaintiff failed to prove any alleged deceptive practice and therefore Plaintiffs Consumer Protection Act cause of action lacks merit. In sum, Plaintiff lacks even a remote possibility of prevailing on any claim. Even if Plaintiff had established a remote possibility of prevailing on a claim, such a showing is insufficient as a matter of law. Plaintiff was required to show a real probability of success on the merits. See Fogle v. H & G Rest., Inc., 337 Md. at 455-56, 654 A.2d at 456-57. Plaintiff failed to support its Motion with any case law supporting any cause of action. It would be inherently unfair if Plaintiff were permitted to supplement its insufficient Motion with support

20

that Defendants have not seen. On this record, Plaintiff has not shown a real probability of prevailing on any cause of action, and for this reason alone the Motion lacks merit and should be denied. IV. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE LESSER INJURY WOULD BE DONE TO DEFENDANTS BY GRANTING THE INJUNCTION THAN WOULD RESULT TO PLAINTIFF BY DENYING IT Plaintiff seeks a wholly unwarranted and unsupported prior restraint on the freedom of speech of Defendants. The Constitutional magnitude of harm to a defendant presented by a prior restraint on the freedom of speech has been recognized under Maryland law. See City of Frederick v. Randall Family, LLC, 154 Md. App. 543, 576, 841 A.2d 10, 30 (2004), The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. Truthful commercial speech enjoys meaningful First Amendment protection. See Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436 U.S. 447, 456, 98 S.Ct. 1912, 1918, 56 L.Ed.2d 444 (1978). The Court of Special Appeals further noted that the United States Supreme Court has interpreted these guarantees to afford special protection against orders that prohibit the publication or broadcast of particular information or commentary orders that impose a previous' or prior restraint on speech. City of Frederick v. Randall Family, LLC, 154 Md. App. at 576, 841 A.2d 10 (quoting Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 556, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 2801, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976)). As the Court of Special Appeals explained, because prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights, any prior restraint bears a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity. City of Frederick v. Randall Family, LLC, 154 Md. App. at 576, 841 A.2d at 30 (quoting Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. at 556 and citing Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419, 91 S.Ct. 1575, 1577-78, 29 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971)). Before a prior 21

restraint can be deemed Constitutional, the test is whether the magnitude of the danger the restraint seeks to prevent, discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger. City of Frederick v. Randall Family, LLC, 154 Md. App. at 577, 841 A.2d at 30 (quoting United States v. Dennis, 183 F.2d 201, 212 (2d Cir. 1950) (Hand, J.), aff'd, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S.Ct. 857, 95 L.Ed. 1137 (1951)). Determining the actual truth or falsity of a defendants speech is not appropriate on a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. A preliminary injunction is not a preliminary adjudication on the merits, but a device for preserving the status quo and preventing the irreparable loss of rights before judgment. Textile Unlimited, Inc. v. A. BMH & Co., 240 F.3d 781, 786 (9th Cir.2001). Against this clear harm to Defendants, Plaintiff asserts in conclusory fashion at pages 2425 of the Motion that J.G. Wentworths reputation, good will, and business interests will be irreparably harmed. But Plaintiff offers no factual support or any citation to the record supporting this weak claim. All of the facts showing Plaintiffs conduct, including facts supplied by independent nonparties, demonstrate that it is Plaintiffs own record and conduct, and not any particular website, that affects Plaintiffs reputation. Indeed, issuing the unwarranted injunction requested by Plaintiff will not make the facts of Plaintiffs conduct disappear. Plaintiff utterly failed to show that any alleged business losses and harm to Plaintiffs business interests results from a website as opposed to the reality of Plaintiffs conduct. Because Plaintiff has not shown that lesser injury would be done to Defendants by granting the injunction than would result to Plaintiff by denying it, the Motion lacks merit and should be denied for this additional, independent reason. V. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE IRREPARABLE HARM Plaintiffs Motion nowhere demonstrates irreparable harm based on any alleged statements by Defendants. To the contrary, Plaintiff appears to argue with the independent, 22

nonparty sources that have documented Plaintiffs conduct. Even assuming Plaintiff lost business as a result of potential customers learning of Plaintiffs record, such a circumstance does not establish irreparable harm to Plaintiff. For this reason as well, the Motion fails as a matter of law. VI. THE PUBLIC INTEREST WOULD BE HARMED BY AN INJUNCTION Robust debate on matters of public concern lies at the heart of the right of freedom of speech recognized by the courts of Maryland. See, e.g., City of Frederick v. Randall Family, LLC, 154 Md. App. at 576, 841 A.2d at 30. There is no public interest whatsoever in preventing any member of the community from speaking out on matters of public concern and commenting on facts reported by independent nonparty sources. The structured settlement market is a matter of public concern. Plaintiffs dubious history is a matter of public record. Issuing a prior restraint on free speech with regard to this matter of public concern would harm the public interest. Plaintiff certainly has not shown that granting the injunction will help the public interest in any way. Accordingly, this factor also cuts decidedly against the injunction. VII. THE REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY SHOULD BE DENIED AS MOOT BECAUSE DISCOVERY HAS ALREADY BEGUN Discovery has already begun and thus the motion for expedited discovery should be denied as moot. VIII. EVEN IF THIS COURT WERE TO ENJOIN DISPARAGEMENT, ANY SUCH ORDER SHOULD BE MUTUAL Even if this Court were inclined to enjoin any disparagement during the pendency of this litigation, any such order should be mutual it would be inherently unfair to subject Defendants to an order limiting their freedom of speech and ability to defend themselves against statements by Plaintiff unless Plaintiff also was ordered not to disparage Defendants.

23