“Maryland law recognizes that a defamation plaintiff has the burden of showing that the allegedly false statement is not ‘substantially correct.’” Hopkins v. Lapchick, 981 F. Supp. 901, 903 (D. Md. 1997) (quoting Batson v. Shiflett, 325 Md. 684, 726, (1992)). Moreover:
In Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 516-17, 115 L. Ed. 2d 447, 111 S. Ct. 2419 (1991), the Supreme Court laid out a broad-ranging review of defamation law’s recognition of the idea that a communication is not actionable if its “substance,…gist,…[or] sting…be justified.” 501 U.S. at 517. The Court went on to give an alternative test, viz., whether the statement “would have a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which the pleaded truth would have …show more content…
Supp. at 904. Critically, “true statements, no matter how damaging to the plaintiff, may never provide the foundation for a defamation claim. Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74, 85 S. Ct. 209, 215, 13 L. Ed. 2d 125 (1964); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964).” AIDS Counseling & Testing Centers v. Group W Television, Inc., 903 F.2d 1000, 1004 (4th Cir. 1990).
In their complaint, the Parents allege that Cardenas placed them in a false light by stating the Andre “was ‘fussy’ at the time he was brought to day care.” (Compl. ¶ 35). To be sure, the Parents assert that Cardenas “knew that her statements to investigators about the origin of the child’s injuries were false,” (Compl. ¶ 38) (emphasis added), but nowhere does the complaint allege that Cardenas made a statement about the origin of Andre’s injuries. Rather, the only statement that Cardenas is alleged to have made is that Andre “was ‘fussy’ at the time he was brought to day care.” (Compl. ¶ …show more content…
Falsity is a necessary element of defamation. Norman, 418 Md. at 645 n.10, and “[a]n allegation of false light must meet the same legal standards as an allegation of defamation.” Piscatelli, 424 Md. at 306. Therefore, because the Parents have not alleged that Cardenas’s statement was false, the complaint is insufficient to state a prima facie case for false light.
C. The Parents Have Not Alleged Special Damages Resulting from Cardenas’s Statement

In order to state a prima facie claim for defamation per quod, a Plaintiff must allege that he suffered special damages as a result of the defamatory statement. In the instant matter, the Parents’ complaint is devoid of facts indicating what, if any, special damages they suffered as a result of Cardenas’s statement.
In the case of defamation per quod, extrinsic facts must be alleged in the complaint to establish the defamatory character of the words or conduct. See M & S Furniture Sales Co., Inc. v. Edward J. De Bartolo Corp., 249 Md. 540, 544, 241 A.2d 126, 128 (1968) (stating that the “injurious effect [of the words or conduct] must be established by allegations and proof of special damage and in such cases it is not only necessary to plead and show that the words or actions were defamatory, but it must also appear that such words or conduct caused actual