Legal Opinion
Brooks v. Rosebar
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided June 27, 2019No. 16-CV-1101PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Glickman, Associate Judge:
Appellant David Brooks sued appellees Michael Rosebar and Erin Rosebar for defamation in 2014 based on reviews they allegedly wrote online about his security camera business. The trial court entered a default against Ms. Rosebar as a sanction for violating court orders in the discovery process, and the case against Mr. Rosebar proceeded. During a September 2016 court hearing, Mr. Brooks and Mr. Rosebar's counsel orally agreed to settle the case, but Mr. Brooks, proceeding pro se , made conflicting statements about whether he intended for the settlement to cover his…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Dyer v. BilaalDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
- Jack Baker, Inc. v. Office Space Development Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- Rosenthal v. National Produce Co., Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- Owen v. OwenDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1981
- Simon v. Circle Associates, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Golden v. Management & Training CorporationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2019
- Matiella v. Murdock Street LLCDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2025