Clipper Mill residents are appealing a judge’s dismissal of their class action complaint against a local developer who sued them for $25 million after they spoke out against his development projects.

Four residents had argued, on behalf of their North Baltimore neighborhood, that businessman Larry E. Jennings Jr. engaged in free speech infringement and malicious prosecution when he served them with the lawsuit in 2020.

Circuit Court Judge Lawrence P. Fletcher-Hill tossed out their case last month, saying the plaintiffs should have been satisfied with the legal costs and expenses they were awarded after Jennings’ legal action was deemed an illegal SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation).

But the residents say the judge got it wrong.

On Saturday, attorneys for the group filed notice with the Appeals Court of Maryland that they plan to appeal.

A bigger victory against Jennings is needed, they say, to discourage deep-pocketed individuals and companies from trying to silence other Maryland residents by means of malicious lawsuits aimed at intimidation.

“I believe in the merits of this case,” said Jessica Meyer, who has lived in Clipper Mill since 2007.

“Maryland needs a legal precedent to stop powerful interests from using the courts against ordinary people in SLAPP suits,” Meyer said in an email to The Brew.

She and the others who spearheaded the class action said they are motivated in part by other instances where similar lawsuits – or lawyers’ letters threatening them – have surfaced in Baltimore.

• Socked by SLAPP suit, Clipper Mill residents punch back (6/28/24)

In the most recent case, an Atlas Restaurant Group attorney sent a letter to residents objecting to one of the company’s projects in Fells Point, warning them that they could be personally sued.

“What was done to us was just so egregious. Just so far out there,” fellow plaintiff Jared Block said, speaking with The Brew earlier this year.

“We don’t think a developer should be able to do this to any community.”

“The irony is notable”

In dismissing their case, Fletcher-Hill argued that the residents who scored a legal win by getting Jennings’ SLAPP thrown out  were overreaching by seeking a legal judgement against their previous tormentor.

“The irony in this action is notable,” Fletcher-Hill wrote in his July 8 memorandum.

“Not content with that unusual victory,” he said, referring to the strongly worded opinion in their favor by Appeals Court Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr., “the defendants, joined by a putative class of new plaintiffs, brought this action alleging malicious use of process based entirely on the earlier action.”

“The court concludes that this action should be dismissed,” Fletcher-Hill wrote.

“Intrusive and abusive”

The novel class action lawsuit was filed in December by residents Meyer, Block, Jeff Pietrzak and Dan Cashman and two entities representing 133 residents in their neighborhood – the Council of Unit Owners of the Millrace Condominiums and the Clipper Mill Homeowners’ Association.

The defendants were not only Jennings but attorney David B. Applefeld, his law firm, Shapiro Guinot and Sandler, and two LLCs controlled by P. David Bramble, MCB Woodberry Parent and MCB Woodberry Developer.

(Bramble’s company acquired the Clipper Mill properties in 2021.)

The 21-page complaint, accusing the parties of “malicious use of process” and infringing on the residents’ constitutional rights to free speech, sought a jury trial, $75,000 in compensatory damages and undetermined punitive damages.

• Anti-SLAPP court testimony targets two prominent Baltimore developers (6/28/24)

The residents contended that Jennings’ aggressive legal attack, which included requests to potentially turn over sensitive personal financial records, computer hard drives, phones and more, was designed to scare and silence them.

“The defendants sought to use the lawsuit as an improper means of intimidation against all class members, to cause anxiety and concern throughout the class, and to seek or threaten to seek intrusive, abusive discovery of personal and confidential business communication,” the suit charged.

While the lawsuit was on the docket, property values were diminished, insurance rates increased and some sales fell through, amounting to”a freeze on class members’ assets,” the residents said.

Judge: “No special injury”

But Fletcher-Hill, who heard arguments in June, sided with lawyers for Jennings and Bramble, who said the class action failed to meet the requirements for a “malicious use of process” claim, specifically that they had suffered “a special injury.”

Maryland law imposes these requirements, Fletcher-Hill noted, because such claims “can be used or abused as retaliation for litigation and therefore can chill a person’s willingness to resolve disputes through the orderly process.”

The judge acknowledged that the residents may have had a tough time (“litigation is almost always an unwelcome and stressful experience”), but concluded that they had not suffered “special injury” or “seizure of property.”

Fletcher-Hill also said the suit improperly included a class of 133 residents “who were not themselves subjected to the allegedly abusive suit.”

In closing, he urged the residents not to appeal his decision, saying:

“The court hopes this cycle of litigation will end. That is the purpose both of [Maryland’s] anti-SLAPP law and the strict limitations on common law actions for malicious use of process.”