A Hoboken political activist and his wife must pay $276,677 in legal fees and costs to the bloggers and internet commenters they accused of defamation in a 2012 lawsuit, Hudson County Superior Court Judge Patrick Arre ruled this past Wednesday.
In addition, two of the three lawyers who represented the couple during the case must pay a $1,000 sanction to the court for failing to prevent a frivolous lawsuit “with the purpose of harassment, delay, and malicious injury” from going forward, in the words of Judge Arre. The third must pay $2,000.
In 2012, 1010 WINS news anchor Lane Bajardi and his wife Kim Cardinal Bajardi, who were the subject of dozens of internet posts by two bloggers aligned with Mayor Dawn Zimmer, filed a defamation suit. The Bajardis alleged that statements made by the bloggers and by 10 unnamed commenters on internet sites between June 2011 and July 2012 were damaging and defamatory toward them.
Of the 114 statements specified in the lawsuit, only six were allowed to go to trial, Hudson County Judge Christine Vanek ruled last September. The rest, she found, could not be considered defamatory because they were rhetorical hyperbole, name-calling, opinion, or disqualified due to New Jersey’s statute of limitations.
“[Their] conduct throughout this case at a minimum demonstrates bad faith, and approaches a fraud upon the Court.” – Patrick Arre
____________
Bitter political fight
The three-year legal saga has provided an in-depth look into the bitter and hyper-personal infighting that sometimes dominates Hoboken politics.
The Bajardis have supported Beth Mason, the councilwoman for the 2nd Ward, who is the most vocal critic of Mayor Zimmer. The bloggers and commenters support Zimmer, who beat out Mason in the runoff election to replace prison-bound Mayor Peter Cammarano in 2009.
Over the years, both sides have traded barbs, often on the web blogs of Roman Brice and Nancy Pincus, the two main defendants.
For example, Pincus nicknamed the Bajardis “Mr. and Mrs. Melanoma,” referred to them as “a sickness living amongst us,” and alleged, among other things, that Lane Bajardi was a racist and an irresponsible parent.
While distasteful, these statements did not rise to the level of defamation, according to Judge Vanek. Due to his political involvement, Lane Bajardi was deemed to be a limited public figure, meaning that statements about him could only be defamation if they were knowingly false or displayed a reckless disregard for the truth (Kim Bajardi’s claims were fully dismissed in Vanek’s ruling).
Harsh words for the Bajardis
Initially, in February, Judge Arre ruled that Lane Bajardi had not done enough to establish “actual malice” on the part of his online interlocutors. This past week, Arre went further, arguing that the Bajardis knew all along that they lacked the evidence to prove defamation and intentionally “manipulated their attorney to perpetrate and perpetuate a SLAPP-suit disguised as a defamation case involving weighty issues of constitutionally-protected First Amendment political free speech.”
A “SLAPP-suit,” Arre explained, is meant to “harass, cause unnecessary delay, and needlessly increase the cost of litigation with the goal of silencing…speech.” The acronym stands for “strategic lawsuit against public participation.”
He said that the Bajardis’ “conduct throughout this case at a minimum demonstrates bad faith, and approaches a fraud upon the court.”
Arre also reserved strong words for the lawyers who represented the Bajardis. Of Pennsylvania-based attorney Jonathan Z. Cohen, Arre wrote, “it should have been apparent [to him], exercising minimal skill and diligence, that his clients did not have and would not have any proof of economic damages, reputational harm, or actual malice.”
But Kim Cardinal Bajardi said Thursday that she and her husband plan to appeal Judge Arre’s ruling.
“This case has always been about hatred and lies,” she said. “My family has been under assault now for six years by members of one of the most powerful political machines in the country. In Hoboken…if a person chooses to exercise his or her constitutional rights and petition their government, they surrender their civil rights and become targets for life.”
Cohen did not respond to a request for comment via email.
Money matters
Of the costs and fees demanded of the Bajardis, $225,757 will go to Mark Heyer, who made comments under two screen aliases, according to the ruling. He was initially one of the 10 internet commenters identified by screen name, but his name became public during the course of the trial.
Another $26,033 will go to Pincus, and $22,687 will go to Brice. Brice had originally requested $102,643 in fees and costs, but his award was limited because Judge Arre ruled that fees should be calculated starting from a month after the defendants sent a special letter challenging the lawsuit as frivolous, something Brice did not do until last December, according to the documents.
When asked for comment, Kerry Flowers, the Hoboken-based attorney who represented Heyer and the other anonymous screen name defendants, said that the ruling of the Hudson County Superior Court spoke for itself.
Asked for comment on Judge Arre’s ruling, Brice would only say for the record that he believed the Bajardis’ suit had been subsidized by Councilwoman Mason, due to the Bajardis’ “own emails and limited financials.”
In a July 2014 affadavit filed in the Bajardis’ lawsuit, Mason denied “funding this or any other litigation” involving the couple.
Cardinal has denied ever being paid by the Masons, either for political work or for the lawsuit.
Carlo Davis may be reached at cdavis@hudsonreporter.com.