Campbell v. Midland Funding, LLC et al

Filing 179

Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 4/14/2010.Teleconference held. Oral argument presented on Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. On the defamation claim the court grants summa ry judgment to the extent the plaintiff is seeking damages for defamation from the service of process of the writ of sequestration. As to the Accudata allegations, the court denies the motion for summary judgment. As to the invasion of privacy clai m, the court grants the motion as to both claims related to the writ of sequestration and Accudata. As to Accudata, publication to one is insufficient to satisfy Plaintiff's burden. As to the writ of sequestration, it is entitled to absolute p rivilege. See Keefer v. Durkos, No. 304-187, 2006 WL 2773247 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2006). As to the malicious prosecution claim the court denies the motion for summary judgment. The court finds that there is sufficient evidence of reckless disregard to justify a finding of legal malice. (Kanies, Renea)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION BRENDA FAITH CAMPBELL Plaintiff, v. KRAMER & FRANK, P.C., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 09-04041-CV-C-NKL April 14, 2010

MINUTE SHEET HONORABLE Nanette K. Laughrey presiding at Jefferson City, Missouri. ==================================================================== Nature of Proceeding: Teleconference - Oral Argument Time: 1:08 p.m. - 2:40 p.m. Plaintiff by: Sylvia Goldsmith Defendant Kramer & Frank, P.C. by: Dana Cutler Comments: Teleconference held. Oral argument presented on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. On the defamation claim the court grants summary judgment to the extent the plaintiff is seeking damages for defamation from the service of process of the writ of sequestration. As to the Accudata allegations, the court denies the motion for summary judgment. As to the invasion of privacy claim, the court grants the motion as to both claims related to the writ of sequestration and Accudata. As to Accudata, publication to one is insufficient to satisfy Plaintiff's burden. As to the writ of sequestration, it is entitled to absolute privilege. See Keefer v. Durkos, No. 304187, 2006 WL 2773247 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2006). As to the malicious prosecution claim the court denies the motion for summary judgment. The court finds that there is sufficient evidence of reckless disregard to justify a finding of legal malice. Court Reporter: Kathy Calvert By: Renea Kanies, Courtroom Deputy