Ramunno v. Cawley
| Decision Date | 19 November 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 530,1996,530 |
| Citation | 705 A.2d 1029 |
| Parties | 26 Media L. Rep. 1651 L. Vincent RAMUNNO, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. Charles M. CAWLEY, MBNA America Bank, N.A., Gannett Co. t/a the News Journal Company and Cris Barrish, Defendants Below, Appellees. . Submitted: |
| Court | Supreme Court of Delaware |
Upon appeal from the Superior Court. REVERSED and REMANDED.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, C.A. No. 96C-06-191.
L. Vincent Ramunno (argued), and Glenn C. Ward, Ramunno & Ramunno, Wilmington, for Appellant.
Steven J. Rothschild (argued), Andrew J. Turezyn, Pamela J. Jones, of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Wilmington; and Charles M. Oberly, III, Kathleen M. Jennings, and Lawrence S. Drexler, Wilmington, for Appellees Charles M. Cawley and MBNA America Bank, N.A.
Richard G. Elliott, Jr. (argued), and John T. Dorsey, of Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, for Appellees the News Journal Company and Cris Barrish.
Before VEASEY, C.J., WALSH, HOLLAND, HARTNETT and BERGER, JJ., constituting the Court en Banc.
In this appeal we reverse, in large part, the decision of the Superior Court to dismiss the complaint under Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6). The complaint asserted claims for libel and civil conspiracy against both media and non-media defendants. We rest our decision solely on pleading rules. A dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper only where the complaint, construed most favorably to the plaintiff, fails as a matter of law to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The trial court's dismissal here does not meet that test.
MBNA America Bank, N.A. ("MBNA") is a national banking association headquartered in Delaware. At the time this controversy arose, MBNA was constructing a four-building office complex in downtown Wilmington. In connection with this project, in the spring of 1996, MBNA and members of Wilmington's municipal government sought to close off a portion of French Street and convert it to a pedestrian plaza. When their intentions became public, however, L. Vincent Ramunno, a local lawyer and land developer, announced his opposition to the proposed street closure and launched a public campaign against the plan. His efforts were ultimately successful, as public opposition forced MBNA to abandon its goal of closing permanently a portion of French Street.
On June 6, 1996, Charles M. Cawley, Chairman of the MBNA Board of Directors, sent a letter to the Mayor of Wilmington and all members of the Wilmington City Council. According to Cawley, the purpose of the letter was to share with city officials the "real motivation" behind Ramunno's opposition to MBNA's closure plan. Referring to Ramunno as a "local land speculator," Cawley's letter noted that MBNA purchased a few parcels of land from Ramunno after MBNA announced its decision to move into Wilmington. Cawley claimed that, "Mr. Ramunno's opposition to MBNA arises from the fact that [MBNA] chose not to purchase additional land from him and that he has learned that many other landowners in the City sold property to MBNA." In the passages that lie at the heart of this litigation, Cawley wrote,
As you may know, in addition to his law office at 10th and French Streets, Mr. Ramunno owns many small parcels of land in Wilmington, including approximately 70 parcels on the Eastside. A number of these parcels are vacant and used as parking lots--one of which has been cited for violations of the City Code. Others are row houses, some of which are occupied by tenants and some of which are boarded up and vacant. Many of these parking lots and row houses are poorly maintained....
Obviously, Mr. Ramunno's motives are questionable. For a man who has done well through poorly-maintained surface parking lots and rental homes in the Eastside neighborhood to portray himself as the spokesman for that same neighborhood strikes us as very odd, inconsistent and almost humorous.
Also on June 6, 1996, Cawley delivered a copy of this letter to Gannett Co., a Delaware corporation that owns and operates The News Journal, a daily paper published in Wilmington. Accompanying the letter was a list of properties owned by Ramunno. The News Journal dispatched one of its reporters, Cris Barrish, to interview Ramunno regarding Cawley's letter. Over the course of the interview, Ramunno explained to Barrish that, of the properties on the list, only five were houses and that only one-half of one house was occupied at that time. Ramunno complained to Barrish that the letter was a "ridiculous" attempt on Cawley's part to portray Ramunno as a "slumlord." Barrish allegedly agreed and assured Ramunno that he knew Ramunno was not a slumlord.
Following the interview, Barrish drafted an article about Cawley's letter and the ongoing public controversy surrounding the proposed closing of French Street. The News Journal published the article on June 7, 1996, under the headline "MBNA chairman blasts landowner as slumlord." 2 The article described Cawley's letter of June 6th and quoted both Cawley and Ramunno at length. In recounting Ramunno's reaction to the letter, Barrish wrote,
Ramunno fumed at the assertion that he doesn't maintain his properties, which number about 70 and include parking lots and rowhouses--a few of them vacant and boarded.
"He makes it sound like I'm a slumlord," Ramunno said. "It's ridiculous."
Ramunno said MBNA had offered to buy one of his parking lots but negotiations fizzled. "I don't care whether they buy my stuff or not."
Despite twice stating that Ramunno owned approximately 70 parcels of land, Barrish never described in the article the extent of Ramunno's holdings. Nowhere did the article explain that only five of Ramunno's properties were houses and that only one-half of one property was occupied at that time. The complaint alleged that this omission led to incorrect and defamatory inferences that fueled the "slumlord" headline.
On June 11, 1996, a cartoon appeared on the editorial page of The News Journal satirically depicting the dispute between Cawley and Ramunno. The cartoon shows an oversized Cawley sitting on what appears to be MBNA's downtown headquarters, while Ramunno sits atop a dilapidated building identified only as "Property of L. Vincent Ramunno." The caption reads, "Two renowned street fighters." The complaint alleged that the cartoon is defamatory.
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....
As 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cousins v. Goodier
...even if the statements are opinion, they imply the existence of undisclosed defamatory facts and are actionable under our decision in Ramunno v. Cawley .27 Goodier counters that her statements express an opinion about Cousins’ Unionville Lawsuit that cannot be proven false and therefore are......
-
Agar v. Judy
...election-related communications among the Company's investors."The law of libel enjoys a constitutional grounding." Ramunno v. Cawley , 705 A.2d 1029, 1035 (Del. 1998). The United States Supreme Court has restricted defamation claims brought by public figures in order to provide "breathing ......
-
Thomson v. Doe
...state like Delaware, a complaint “need only give ‘general notice of the claim asserted.’ ” 884 A.2d at 458 (quoting Ramunno v. Cawley, 705 A.2d 1029, 1034 (Del.Sup.Ct.1998) ). Therefore, “even silly or trivial libel claims can easily survive a motion to dismiss where the plaintiff pleads fa......
-
Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC. v. Roche Diagnostics GMBH
...under Rule 12(b)(6), we remain heedful of our duty to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant. ...Ramunno v. Cawley , 705 A.2d 1029, 1034 (Del. 1998) (internal citations and footnotes omitted).4 App. to Op. Br. at A018 (Complaint).5 Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC v. Roche Dia......
-
Protecting Online Anonymity and Preserving Reputation Through Due Process
...for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, it need only give 'general notice of the claim asserted.'" (quoting Ramunno v. Cawley, 705 A.2d 1029, 1034 (Del. 1998))). 69. See America Online, 52 Va. Cir. 26 at 37. 2011] PROTECTING ONLINE ANONYMITY 765 Tecum to America Online, Inc, America......