IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND

) Case No. 06-C-16-070789

)
) DEFENDANT SCHMALFELDTS
) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER
v.
) VENUE
)
)
Brett Kimberlin, et al.
)
Defendants
)
______________________________________________________________________________
William John Joseph Hoge, III
Plaintiff pro se,

NOW COMES Defendant William M. Schmalfeldt Sr. of 3209 South Lake Drive,
Apartment 108, Saint Francis, WI, 53235 in the above-styled case for the sole purpose of
challenging personal jurisdiction and without waiving any rights of jurisdiction, notice, process,
service of process, joinder, or venue. He hereby files this Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue
and states the following:

I. PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO PLEAD FACTS SUPPORTING VENUE IN CARROLL COUNTY

1.

In the instant case, the proper venue must lie in either Howard County, Maryland,

or Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. Md. Cts. & Jud. P. 6-201(a) states that a civil action shall
be brought in a county where the defendant resides, carries on a regular business, is employed, or
habitually engages in a vocation[.] Neither Mr. Schmalfeldt nor any of the other Defendants
reside in Carroll County, carry on regular business in Carroll County, are employed in Carroll
County or habitually carry out a vocation in Carroll County. Plaintiff makes no allegation to the
contrary, so 6-201(a) cannot be used to establish venue in Carroll County.
Md. Cts. & Jud. P. 6-201(b) widens the possible scope for venue in a civil action,
allowing, in the case of multiple defendants, that all may be sued in a county in which any one
of them could be sued, or in the county where the cause of action arose. (Emphasis added.) The

allegations Plaintiff makes against Defendant Schmalfeldt arose while Schmalfeldt lived in
Howard County. Further allegations arose when Schmalfeldt lived in Milwaukee County. In fact,
the Plaintiffs own allegations show that every cause of action alleged against Defendant
Schmalfeldt arose outside of Carroll County.
a. THE CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGED AGAINST MR. SCHMALFELDT AROSE IN
HOWARD COUNTY OR MILWAUKEE COUNTY
All causes of action alleged against Mr. Schmalfeldt in the instant lawsuit relate to
articles or comments posted on the Internet. Plaintiff has not properly alleged that any Mr.
Schmalfeldts Internet articles and comments at issue in this case were posted from any location
other than his residence in Howard County. Plaintiff does not allege anything to the contrary.
Any defamation published in a national or international medium such as the Internet
occurs in the place where the person posting the allegedly defamatory statement is physically
present at the time of publication. See, e.g., Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789-790 (1984).
Thus, an Internet article or comment posted for a general world-wide audience by a person in, for
example, Tennessee occurs in Tennessee and is not subject to Md. Cts. & Jud. P. 6-103(b)(3)
unless it can be shown that the posting was not directed to a general audience beyond Maryland.
In his allegations of Breach of Contract against Mr. Schmalfeldt, Plaintiff alleges
instances that arose when Schmalfeldt lived in Milwaukee.
Thus, none of the causes of action alleged by Plaintiff arose in Carroll County.
Other than dismissing the instant suit and re-filing in Howard County and/or Milwaukee
County Plaintiffs remaining viable choice for venue to sue Mr. Schmalfeldt and the other

defendants is a county in which any one of them could be sued[.] Since none of the defendants
in the instant case reside in Carroll County, carry on regular business in Carroll County, are
employed in Carroll County or habitually carry out a vocation in Carroll County, Plaintiff would
need to decide in which county to file his lawsuit. Maryland Law does not give him the option of
filing in Carroll County, since Mr. Schmalfeldt lived (at the time of some of the allegations) in
Howard County, Mr. and Mrs. Kimberlin reside in Montgomery County, Mr. Osborne resides in
Alabama, Mr. Ferguson resides in California, and the Plaintiff has not established a place of
residence for the others he seeks to name in his lawsuit. As none of the defendants reside (or
resided during the alleged incidents) in Carroll County, the instant suit should be dismissed with
respect to Mr. Schmalfeldt for improper venue pursuant to Rule 2-322(a). Additionally, because
the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the other Defendants, the suit should be dismissed with
respect to them as well.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Mr. Schmalfeldt asks the Court to DISMISS the instant lawsuit for
improper venue pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-322(a) and for such other relief as it may deem just
and proper.
Respectfully submitted this 15th day of June, 2016.

/s/William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr.

William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr.
3209 S. Lake Dr., Apt. 108
Saint Francis, WI 53235
414-249-4379
bschmalfeldt@twc.com
Pro Se Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of this pleading has on this day been sent by electronic mail to
WJJ Hoge III and other named defendants by agreement between the parties.

/s/William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr.

William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr.
Pro Se Defendant