Martina Evans v. Greenwich Insurance a/k/a AXA XL Insurance Company, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland grants defendants’ motions to dismiss Martina Evans’s claims for defamation, false light, negligence, and invasion of privacy. The court holds that the defamation claim was timely filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a), but concludes that the Maryland litigation privilege bars tort claims based on statements made by defense counsel in connection with ongoing state-court litigation. The opinion also denies the plaintiff’s alternative request for leave to amend for failure to comply with the applicable local rule.

Holdings

1. The defamation claim was not time-barred because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) governed computation of the one-year limitations period, and Evans timely filed on the next Monday after the anniversary date fell on a Saturday.
2. The litigation privilege protected Charnoff from tort liability for statements in his November 30, 2023, email because the email was sent during the course of an ongoing appeal and was contextually connected and relevant to the Anne Arundel litigation.
3. The litigation privilege extended to Greenwich because, as the insurer responsible for hiring Charnoff to defend its insured, Greenwich was a participant in the litigation and the claims against it were based solely on the protected litigation-connected conduct of its retained attorney.
4. Evans's request for temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief was subject to dismissal because the Amended Complaint did not establish irreparable injury or actionable conduct warranting an injunction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Evans's defamation claim was barred by Maryland's one-year statute of limitations when the limitations anniversary fell on a Saturday and the complaint was filed the following Monday.
2. Whether statements made by an attorney in an email to an opposing party after dismissal of the trial-level case, but while an appeal was pending, were protected by Maryland's absolute litigation privilege.
3. Whether the litigation privilege extended to Greenwich, the insurer that retained the attorney to defend its insured.
4. Whether Evans's claim for injunctive relief was adequately supported by allegations of irreparable injury and actionable conduct.

Disposition

dismissed