In Schmalfeldt’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Make More Definite in Schmalfeldt v. Grady, et al, he makes a rather interesting argument in defense of his complaint.
The Defendants’ motion states the following:
These Defendants request that the Plaintiff be required to give dates and places for the allegations in Paragraphs 4, 5, 9, 15, 16,19, 23, 28, 30, and 39. Without this information these Defendants and the Court cannot properly determine the application of the South Carolina Long-Arm Statute to this Complaint.
And his response:
III. The Defendants Are Attempting to Throw Cold Water on Plaintiff’s Argument for Specific Personal Jurisdiction by Focusing on Allegations Made for Actions Taken Against Plaintiff Before He Moved to South Carolina in April 2017
Oh, this is going to be good.
He starts out stating with the following in paragraph 1:
In Paragraph 9 of the SAC, Plaintiff alleges “(a)ll four defendants have remarked on Plaintiff’s difficulty in finding a permanent residence since moving to South Carolina in April 2017.”
And to support that statement he adds comments made by the defendants’ ..
… are you sitting down, because I don’t want you to fall over and hurt yourself from laughing too hard…
He adds quotes from the various blogs that were made AFTER he filed the initial suit. No really, he’s adding MORE RECENT allegations of butthurt into his opposition.
And he even pulls one from the blog of yours truly:
On July 18, on a blog by Marvin J. Rodriguez, Defendant Grady wrote:3
Well, after I email-blasted EVERY LANDLORD IN THE ENTIRE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA (no, really – there’s a list) and reminded them that STEP 1 of any background check is RUN A CREDIT REPORT on any prospective tenant, that general advice has apparently guaranteed that a guy with two moves in 6 months and a pending lawsuit in Maryland is going to get the brush off.
So why in the world would he think to add those in, even though it’s improper?
I’m SO GLAD YOU ASKED! He is more than willing to share his amazing legal acumen.
2. Paragraphs 15, 16, 19, 23, 28 and 30 have less to do with establishing Specific Personal Jurisdiction in South Carolina than they do with establishing a pattern of conduct leading to the Defendants’ tortious acts after Plaintiff moved to South Carolina.
Let me see if I understand this: He admits the paragraphs in the complaint were not about establishing specifics, nor to satisfy jurisdiction, but rather to show a pattern of behavior and improperly adding more alleged comments helps that?
Um, ok. So what is to be gained from this? Oh yeah, he spells out his trial strategy:
3. When Plaintiffs case is presented to a jury, not only will the jury hear about the harm they have caused to Plaintiff by their specific, manifestly intended targeting of their defamatory comments to the forum state, Plaintiff plans to introduce evidence of defamation and other alleged torts going back to late 2015. All this Court needs to do is take a look at any of the three mentioned blogs and the comments inserted after each post to see the scurrilous and scandalous accusations made against the Plaintiff, not only since his move to South Carolina, but before.
In other words, your Honor, go to these defendants blogs, read the comments and let me have my trial.
And to top it all off, he makes this statement:
4. There are other potential defendants who may well be permissively joined to this suit as it progresses, if it is allowed to progress as justice demands.
In other words, I have more people that have caused me massive butthurt and I really need to get this going so I can add them to the suit.
In essence, he has more than ice cubes to worry about for this ship…