Mudd Law Offices represents individuals and entities sued (or who have been threatened to be sued) for engaging in their exercise of their freedom of speech.
In this defamation action, Mudd Law Offices represented the Defendants and obtained summary judgment in favor of its clients on the sole count against them for defamation per se.
In 2009, Dennis and Susan O'Brien submitted a bid for a property in Oak Brook, Illinois. The property had been in foreclosure for some time. Constantine Xinos ("Xinos") also submitted a bid on behalf of his clients. Washington Mutual ("WaMu") accepted the O'Briens' bid. Consequently, the O'Briens entered into a contract with WaMu ("WaMu Contract"). The WaMu contract contained a term providing the homeowners association in which the property belonged a right of first refusal. This condition precedent represented the only item standing between the O'Briens and ownership of the property.
Xinos also served as President of the Homeowners Association. At a Homeowners Association meeting, Xinos proposed that the Association accept bids for the assignment of the right of first refusal with respect to the property and assign the right of first refusal to the highest bidder. The Association had not exercised its right of first refusal in nearly 20 years. Because not enough board members were present to vote on the proposal, the meeting was continued to the following week.
Between the two meetings, the O'Briens drafted a letter addressed to members of the Homeowners Association. In the letter, the O'Briens sought to influence the members to, in turn, influence the Association board members to vote against assignment of the right of first refusal. In the letter, the O'Briens made comments about Xinos.
At the next meeting, the Homeowners Association voted 4-2 to assign the right of first refusal to the highest bidder. The only bidder happened to be the clients for whom Xinos had submitted the bid. The O'Briens believed it unfair to require them to bid for the right of first refusal under such circumstances.
Nearly a year later, Xinos sued the O'Briens for defamation per se.
The O'Briens filed a motion for summary judgment. This included the motion for summary judgment, the memorandum in support, and the statement of material facts and supporting exhibits.
Based upon the Plaintiff's argument discovery had not been completed, the Court allowed discovery on the summary judgment motion to continue. The parties then exchanged written discovery and took depositions.
Eventually, the Plaintiff filed his response to the motion for summary judgment. The O'Briens filed their reply.
The Court held oral arguments on May 2, 2012. After oral arguments, the Court granted the O'Briens motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Reconsideration.