Stutz Artiano v. Larkins CA4/1

I.

INTRODUCTION

In April 2009, after the trial court found that Maura Larkins had published

defamatory statements on her Web sites regarding the law firm of Stutz Artiano Shinoff

& Holtz, APC (the Stutz Firm), Larkins agreed to a stipulated injunction that restrained

her from publishing the statements at issue and also prohibited her from publishing future

statements accusing the Stutz Firm or its lawyers of "illegal conduct or violations of law,

unethical conduct, lack of professional competence or intimidation." Over the next year,

the trial court found on three separate occasions that Larkins continued to violate the

April 2009 injunction. In March 2010, the court imposed monetary sanctions and warned

Larkins that further noncompliance would result in the court striking her answer and

entering a default as a terminating sanction.

In 2012, more than three years after the issuance of the original stipulated

injunction, the trial court found that Larkins continued to violate the injunction. The

court struck Larkins's answer and the clerk entered her default. After a prove up hearing,

the trial court entered a default judgment against Larkins in the amount of…