SSRGA recently succeeded in obtaining affirmance of a trial court ruling granting summary judgment in favor of our client.
The case was the continuation of litigation between the parties spanning several states and dating back to at least 2019. The pro se plaintiff was previously found liable in a New Hampshire state court proceeding for damages to a residential property owned by one of the defendants. The plaintiff had unsuccessfully appealed that decision four times. There was also a prior suit in New Hampshire in which one of the defendants sued the pro se plaintiff for unpaid rent. The court in that case found that the plaintiff owed the rent, but that the defendant had failed to meet her burden of establishing the amount.
In the most recent lawsuit underlying the appeal, the pro se plaintiff sued the defendants in Florida for libel and malicious prosecution, alleging the defendants had made false statements about him in the earlier court proceedings in New Hampshire and had brought baseless claims. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Interestingly, New Hampshire law applied to the plaintiff’s claims under the “significant relationship test” as explained in Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co., 389 So. 2d 999, 1001 (Fla. 1980), because New Hampshire clearly had the most significant relationship to the occurrence giving rise to the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff appealed.
SSRGA represented the defendants-appellees in the appeal in the Sixth District Court of Appeal. We argued that the statements forming the basis of the plaintiff’s claim could not support a libel action because they fell under the privilege for statements made in judicial proceedings. We also argued, as to malicious prosecution, that the plaintiff failed to show the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact as to malice and lack of probable cause (the second and third elements of that cause of action under New Hampshire law).
The appeals court agreed with SSRGA’s arguments and issued a per curiam affirmance, or “PCA.” This favorable result for our clients ends the case and stops the plaintiff’s effort to revive the case that was already decided against him.
* Decision not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing *