WILLIAM JOHN JOSEPH HOGE, INTHE Plaintiff CIRCUIT COURT vs. FOR BRETT KIMBERLIN, et: al, CARROLL COUNTY Defendants CASE NO. 06-C-16-70789 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Pending before the Court is the Defendant's, William M. Schmalfeldt, St.’s, (hereinafter “Defendant”), Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, and Plaintiff's, William Hoge’s, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), Opposition thereto. Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on March 2, 2016, names a number of defendants and generally alleges that they engaged in tortious conduct amounting to defamation, civil conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and breach of contract. With regard to the Defendant, Plaintiff alleges that he made defamatory remarks that endorse false statements made in an article regarding the Plaintiff. On April 15, 2016, Defendant responded to Plaintiffs Complaint by filing a Preliminary Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (hereinafter “Motion to Dismiss”). In support of his Motion to Dismiss, Defendant states that he is no longer a resident of Maryland, and that the tortious actions alleged by Plaintiff occurred after ‘August 22, 2015, the date Defendant moved to St. Francis, Wisconsin. He further states that all of his Internet domains are registered through Site Ground, Inc., and that the ENTERED JUN g 3 206¢ website's billing address is listed as the Defendant's current residential address in St. Francis, Wisconsin. On April 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, maintaining that the Court had both general and specific personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, due to his past and continuing tortious conduct. DISCUSSION ‘After a consideration of the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and the Plaintiff's Opposition thereto, the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction over the Defendant. The determination of whether a Maryland court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is a two-step process. “First, the requirements under the long-arm statute must be satisfied, and second, the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with due process.” Bond v. Messerman, 391 Md. 706, 721, 895 A.2d 990, 999 (2006) (citations omitted). Maryland courts have “construed our long-arm statute to authorize the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the full extent allowable under the Due Process Clause.” Id. at 721, 895 A.2d at 999 (citations omitted); Mackey v. Compass Mktg, Inc, 391 Md. 117, 130, 892 A.2d 479, 486 (2006). This is because the court “must be assured that defendant's contacts with Maryland ‘are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’ ” Mackey, 391 Md. at 130, 892 A.2d at 486. a. Satisfaction of Maryland's Long-Arm Statute Plaintiff argues that Defendant's conduct satisfies the statutory requirements under Maryland Code § 6-102 (general personal jurisdiction) and § 6-103 (specific personal jurisdiction) of the Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. TheCourt finds that CJ § 6-103(b),(3) authorizes the assertion of personal jurisdiction over the Defendant in this matter. CJ §§ 6-102 and 6-103 “delineate the general limitations on a court's jurisdiction over a person.” Allen v. Allen, 105 Md. App. 359, 367-68, 659 A.2d 411, 415 (1995). CJ§ 6-102(a) provides that “[a] court may exercise personal jurisdiction as to any cause of action over a person domiciled in, served with process in, organized under the laws of, or who maintains his principal place of business in the State,” while, CJ § 6-103(a) states that “[i]f jurisdiction over a person is based solely upon this section, he may be sued only ona cause of action arising from any act enumerated in this section.” CJ § 6-103 enumerates six bases for establishing personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant for causes of action arising in the State of Maryland. CJ § 6-103(b) provides, in pertinent part (b) A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who directly or by an agent 1) Transacts any business or performs any character of work or service in the Sate; 2) Contracts to supply goods, food, services, or manufactured products in the State; 3) Causes tortious injury in the State by an act or omission in the State; 4) Causes tortious injury in the State or outside of the State by an act or omission outside the State if he regularly does or solicits business, engages in any other persistent course of conduct in the State or derives substantial revenue from goods, food, services, or manufactured products used or consumed in the State; 5) Has an interest in, uses, or possesses real property in the State; or 6) Contracts to insure or act as surety for, or on, any person, property, risk, contract,pa r obligation, or agreement located, executed, or to be performed within the State at the time the contract is made, unless the parties otherwise provide in writing.” Mp. CODE ANN, C18. & JUD. PROC, § 6-103(b).. ‘The Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint alleges sufficient facts to establish personal jurisdiction over the Defendant under CJ § 6-103(b),(3). Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendant's actions while he was in Maryland, of writing “Matt, that was an appropriately brutal and true depiction of events” in a comment to an on-line article regarding the Plaintiff, caused tortious injury to the Plaintiff's reputation in Maryland. Complaint, J 43. In response, the Defendant claims that “all of the actions described by Plaintiff in his complaint... . occurred after August 22, 2015,” the date the Defendant re- located to Wisconsin. Motion to Dismiss, p. 2, However, paragraphs 43-44, under Count TV of Plaintiff’s Complaint, point out that the defamatory article, titled “William Hoge Stalking A Teenager for His Conspiracy Theory,” was published on March 4, 2015. Therefore, viewing the Complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Defendant's alleged defamatory statements occurred before August 22, 2015, and while he was a Maryland resident. b, Minimum Contacts The Court next considered whether personal jurisdiction comports with due process based on the facts of this case. The Court concludes that specific personal jurisdiction over the Defendant in this matter, based on his alleged conduct regarding the March 4, 2015 article, is consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.“To comply with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant requires that the defendant have established minimum contacts with the forum state and that to hale him or her into court in the forum state would comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Messerman, 391 Md. at 722, 895 A.2d at 1000. “In determining whether minimum contacts exist, we consider (1) the extent to which the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of the privilege of conducting activities in the State; (2) whether the plaintiff's claims arise out of those activities directed at the State; and (3) whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be constitutionally reasonable.” Id. (citations omitted), Applying the above to the facts of the case sub judice, itis apparent that the Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with Maryland. The Defendant lived in Maryland for several years. Additionally, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that while Defendant lived in Howard County, Maryland, he was the former editor of Breilbart Unmasked, an internet website. Furthermore, the Defendant purportedly has written, several commentaries on that website, under a number of pseudonyms, including “The Liberal Grouch.” Plaintiff alleges that on March 4, 2015, the Defendant made a commentary to an article regarding the Plaintiff, which led to the instant suit. Lastly, Plaintiff contends that Defendant has sued the Plaintiff three times in Maryland in the past two years, although one petition was withdrawn and the other two were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to serve out-of-state defendants, and improper venue. Defendant does not dispute any of these allegations in his Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the Defendant purposefully availedC ¢ himself of the benefits of the State of Maryland to ee with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. The Court has determined that it has jurisdiction over the Defendant pursuant to CJ § 6-103(b),(8), and, therefore, the case will proceed in the ordinary course. The Court will therefore enter an attendant Order consistent with the opinions expressed herein. spre 9, Zo/é DATE 7 junge FRED 8. HECKER Ciréuit Court for Carroll CountyGa (i WILLIAM JOHN JOSEPH HOGE, INTHE Plaintiff CIRCUIT COURT vs. FOR BRETT KIMBERLIN, et. al, CARROLL COUNTY Defendants CASE NO. 06-C-16-70789 ORDER ‘Upon consideration of the Defendant's, William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr.’s, Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, and Plaintiff's Opposition thereto, itis this BTR og Jone 2016, by the Circuit Court for Carroll County, ORDERED, that the Defendant's, William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr.'s, Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is DENIED. FRED S. HECKER Circuit Court for Carroll County ENTERED JUN 9 9 2016