Velencia v. Drezhlo

• Decision Date: 13 December 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. RDB-12-00237
• Parties: FATHER RAYMOND VELENCIA, Plaintiff, v. BARBARA M. DREZHLO, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

FATHER RAYMOND VELENCIA, Plaintiff,

v.BARBARA M. DREZHLO, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. RDB-12-00237

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Dated: December 13, 2012

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Father Raymond Velencia ("Plaintiff" or "Father Velencia") has brought this action for defamation, slander and libel (Count I) seeking injunctive relief (Count II) against Barbara M. Drezhlo ("Drezhlo"), Melanie S. Sakoda ("Sakoda"), Catherine B. Larson ("Larson"), V. Rev. Michael Regan ("Father Regan") and Mark E. Stokoe ("Stokoe") (collectively "Defendants"). Specifically, Father Velencia alleges that the Defendants operate, publish, moderate and maintain websites in which he has been defamed following the unsubstantiated accusations of one of his former employees and parishoners.

Pending before this Court is Defendant Stokoe's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While Defendant Father Regan has not formally moved this Court to dismiss the action against him on the same grounds, this Court notes that Father Regan is self-represented and has indicated on two separate occasions hisbelief that Defendant Stokoe's motion applies to him.¹ Accordingly, this Court will consider Father Regan's pleadings as indicating his desire to join Defendant Stokoe's Motion to Dismiss.² The parties' submissions have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2011). For the reasons that follow, Defendant Stokoe's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8), which the self-represented Defendant Father Regan joins, is GRANTED. Plaintiff Father Velencia has failed to make a prima facie showing of Internet-based personal jurisdiction. As a result, Plaintiff's claims against both Defendants Stokoe and Father Regan are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND

This Court accepts as true the facts alleged in the Plaintiff's complaint. See Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388, 390 (4th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff Father Raymond Velencia ("Plaintiff" or "Father Velencia"), an Archpriest in the Orthodox Church in America ("the Church"), Diocese of Washington, D.C., was the parish priest at St. Matthew's Church in Columbia, Maryland until his resignation on September 2, 2011. Pl.'s Compl. ¶¶ 11, 13, ECF No. 1. He also occupied the positions of President and Chief Executive Officer of the St. Matthew Housing Development. Id. ¶ 12

In February 2006, Father Velencia terminated the employment of Kristine Patico Koumentakos ("Koumentakos") at the St. Matthew Housing Development after noticingthat she was falsifying her timesheets. Id. ¶ 14. Upon being discharged, Ms. Koumentakos filed a Discrimination Charge against Father Velencia with the Howard County Office of Human Relations in April 2006. Id. ¶ 15. Although she voluntarily withdrew her Charge, she proceeded to file a complaint with the Church in January 2007 and a lawsuit against Father Velencia and others in the Circuit Court for Howard County in 2008. Id; see also Kristine Patico Koumentakos, et ux. v. Metropolitan Herman, et al., Case No. 13-C-08-073089 OT. With respect to Father Velencia, Ms. Koumentakos alleged that he had violated the Seal of Sacrament of Confession. Id. ¶ 15, 16. As a result of her accusations, the Church began an investigation which revealed that Father Velencia had not violated the secrecy of confession and that Ms. Koumentakos herself was probably the source of the confidentiality violation. Id. ¶ 16. The parties eventually reached a settlement in 2010. Id. ¶ 17.

Prior to settling, however, Ms. Koumentakos allegedly used gossip websites operated, published, moderated and maintained by the Defendants in this presently pending action to defame and accuse Father Velencia publicly. Id. ¶ 17. These websites have allegedly contributed to tarnishing Father Velencia's reputation and he contends that he has been forced to resign from the Orthodox Church. Id. ¶ 25. Father Velencia also alleges that "[t]he horrible accusations and false statements have caused severe emotional distress and harm not only to" himself but also to his family. Id.

With regard to Defendant Mark E. Stokoe ("Stokoe"), a citizen and resident of the State of Ohio, Father Velencia alleges that he operates and edits the Orthodox Christians for Accountability website at www.ocanews.org. Id. ¶¶ 8, 24. "The website is known for posting information related to financial misconduct and criminal charges against members ofthe clergy." Id. ¶ 24. The website also allegedly permits readers to comment on the articles that Defendant Stokoe writes. Id. Father Velencia claims that Defendant Stokoe has the authority to approve and edit these comments. Id.

According to Father Velencia, Defendant Stokoe used his website to repeatedly and "falsely accuse [him] of financial misconduct and" of violating the seal of confession. Id. Moreover, Defendant Stokoe allegedly allowed readers to further defame Father Velencia's reputation by authorizing several negative posts and rejecting comments "that were submitted to defend and dispel the false accusations." Id. Specifically, Father Velencia claims that, on his website, Defendant Stokoe acknowledged having refused to publish Father Velencia's letters in his defense but that he published accusatory communications submitted by Ms. Koumentakos. Id. While Father Velencia does not identify the exact articles containing Defendant Stokoe's disparaging remarks, in three instances he directly quotes negative and defamatory statements allegedly written by Defendant Stokoe on his website. See id. ¶¶ 24(b), 24(d), 24(f).

Defendant V. Rev. Michael Regan ("Father Regan"), a citizen and resident of the State of California, is allegedly the moderator of the "Orthodox Forum" on Yahoo.com. Id. ¶¶ 9, 21. According to Plaintiff, "[t]hat message board allows individuals to publish comments and information about subjects pertaining to the Orthodox Church." Id. ¶ 21. Plaintiff further alleges that as the moderator of that message board, Father Regan is responsible for the posts published on it. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff claims that Father Regan "knowingly permitted the publication of derogatory and defamatory matter" concerning Plaintiff and "blocked the publication of countervailing material that was submitted to beposted on Plaintiff's behalf." Id. Father Velencia further claims that Defendant Regan "allowed a lengthy post to appear on the message board" in which Father Velencia was falsely referred to as a child molester. Id.

Father Velencia makes similar allegations with respect to the remaining Defendants, Barbara M. Drezhlo, Melanie S. Sakoda and Catherine B. Larson. Id. ¶¶ 18-20, 22-23. Father Velencia has encountered some difficulties in effecting service on these Defendants. As a result, this Court granted him an additional thirty days from the issuance of the November 9, 2012 Letter Order (ECF No. 19) to effect service on these Defendants.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

I. Rule 12(b)(2)

When a non-resident defendant challenges a court's personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff has the burden of proving grounds for jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 396 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 59-60 (4th Cir. 1993)). The plaintiff must produce competent evidence to sustain jurisdiction. Nichols v. G.D. Searle & Co., 783 F. Supp. 233, 235 (D. Md. 1992). If the court is deciding the issue without a hearing, the plaintiff is only required to make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction. Mylan, 2 F.3d at 60. However, a court "need not credit conclusory allegations or draw farfetched inferences" in deciding jurisdictional disputes. Chattery Int'l, Inc. v. JoLinda, Inc., No. WDQ-10-2236, 2011 WL 1230822, at *13 (D. Md. Mar. 28, 2011).

Before a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, a court must determine that (1) the exercise of jurisdiction is authorized under the state's long-arm statute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(a), and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction conforms to the Fourteenth Amendment's due process requirements. Carefirst, 334 F.3d at 396; see also Christian Sci. Bd. of Dirs. of the First Church of Christ v. Nolan, 259 F.3d 209, 215 (4th Cir. 2001). In order for the exercise of personal jurisdiction to comport with due process, a non-resident defendant must have sufficient "minimum contacts" with the forum state such that requiring it to defend itself within the forum state "does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Int'l Shoe Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). Although Maryland courts "have consistently held that the state's long-arm statute is coextensive with the limits of personal jurisdiction set out by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution," Carefirst, 334 F.3d at 396, the long-arm statute must still be examined as part of the two-step personal jurisdiction analysis. Mackey v. Compass Mktg., Inc., 892 A.2d 479, 493 n.6 (Md. 2006) (explaining that although the "long-arm statute is coextensive with the limits of personal jurisdiction set by the due process . . . [it does not] mean . . . that it is now permissible to dispense with analysis under the long-arm statute"); see also MD. CODE ANN., CTS. & JUD. PROC. § 6-103(b) (setting forth the Maryland long-arm statute). Therefore, to satisfy the long-arm prong of a personal jurisdiction analysis, a plaintiff must specifically identify a provision in a Maryland statute that authorizes jurisdiction. Ottenheimer Publishers, Inc. v. Playmore, Inc., 158 F. Supp. 2d 649, 652 (D. Md. 2001). Although it is preferable for a plaintiff to identify the statute authorizing jurisdiction in its complaint, a plaintiff alternatively may...