IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND WILLIAM HOGE, Plaintiff, v. No. C-16-70789 BRETT KIMBERLIN, et al., Defendants DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin hereby reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to their Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants request a hearing on their motion. 1. Plaintiff spends his entire response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment attempting to create material factual disputes, while completely failing to address the Defendants’ legal arguments for granting summary judgment. In Maryland, “itis clear that under Maryland's summary judgment rule a trial court determines issues of law; it makes rulings as a matter of law, resolving no disputed issues of fact. Heat & Power v. Air Products, 320 Md. 584, 591, 578 A.2d 1202 (1990). 2. Defendants have made “matter of law” arguments as to why summary judgment must be granted. Plaintiff, however, has failed to address them. These include, + Plaintiffhas not addressed Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff is estopped from contesting the facts because the jury in the Walker case has already decided those facts in Defendants’ favor. \asonnt-a Cc Plaintiff has not addressed Defendants’ argument that Res Judicata prohibits the relitigation of this case because (1) Plaintiff could have joined Walker's suit in Montgomery County, (2) Plaintiffis in privity with Walker, (3) the issues and facts in the two cases are identical, (4) the Walker jury ruled in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff has not addressed Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff has failed as a matter of law to state a claim for defamation because he has not alleged any (1) false statements (2) made to a third party (3) that subjected Plaintiff to harm. Plaintiff has not addressed Defendants’ argument that the litigation privilege immunizes Brett Kimberlin from suit for communications used in relation to litigation prior litigation. Plaintiff has not addressed Defendants’ argument that there was overwhelming probable cause for the issuance of the two complaints, and Defendants lacked any malice. Therefore, as a matter of law the malicious prosecution claims fail. Plaintiff has not addressed Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff has neither suffered nor alleged any damages other than incidental costs, which are not even recoverable under Maryland law. Plaintiff has not addressed Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff is using his lawsuit as an impermissible collateral attack on the jury's decision in the Walker case in the hope of getting an inconsistent decision to undermine that Walker judgment.In short, Plaintiff is estopped from disputing facts already decided by a jury after a full trial in which he testified. Moreover, Defendants are entitled as a matter of law to summary judgment on the basis of the issues raised in the motion. eee Kimberlin Certificate of Service I certify that I served a copy of this motion on Plaintiff fhis 19% day of May, 2017. Bethesda, MD 20817 (301}.320 5921 justicejtmp@comcastnet