Hartnett v. Hardenbergh: Defamation & Malicious Prosecution
Table of Contents
Case Background
Plaintiff Pamela K. Hartnett filed the civil action against Defendants Charles Vanevera Hardenbergh and Mari Liza Hardenbergh, along with several corporate entities. The dispute stemmed from a conflict that arose on the night of July 20, 2019, and the subsequent days. Ms. Hartnett alleged that the incident resulted in severe personal injuries and damage to her personal property. Furthermore, she claimed the Defendants orchestrated a widespread campaign of false and damaging statements against her, which led to a protracted legal and emotional battle. The Hardenberghs, in turn, denied all wrongdoing and brought forward their own counterclaims against Ms. Hartnett.
Cause
The core of the initial Complaint rested on two main areas of conflict: the physical altercation and the subsequent campaign of defamation.
Physical and Emotional Harm Ms. Hartnett claimed that both Charles V. Hardenbergh and Mari L. Hardenbergh committed assault and battery against her. This serious allegation suggested that the Defendants made physical contact with Ms. Hartnett without her consent and in a harmful or offensive way. Separately, Ms. Hartnett also brought a claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) against Mr. Hardenbergh, asserting that his extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally caused her severe emotional trauma.
Defamation and Conspiracy The second set of claims centered on the Defendants' alleged public attack on Ms. Hartnett’s character and reputation. Ms. Hartnett claimed that the Hardenberghs engaged in defamation and defamation per se by spreading a series of lies and false statements about her. These statements falsely asserted that Ms. Hartnett had fabricated her allegations to law enforcement, was mentally unstable or a "sociopath," and had committed violent criminal acts. She also claimed they falsely accused her of embezzling money from her employer. Finally, Ms. Hartnett alleged that both Defendants participated in a Statutory Business Conspiracy designed to harm her professionally and financially.
Injury
As a result of the Defendants’ alleged actions, Ms. Hartnett reported that she suffered significant personal injuries and property damage directly stemming from the July 2019 incident. She also claimed profound emotional and psychological harm due to the alleged defamation campaign, which sought to ruin her professional and personal standing.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiff sought compensatory damages to cover her medical costs, property losses, and emotional suffering, as well as punitive damages to punish the Defendants for their deliberate and malicious conduct.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The Defendants, Charles Vanevera Hardenbergh and Mari Liza Hardenbergh, vigorously fought the allegations. In their formal response to the Complaint, the Hardenberghs issued a blanket denial of all claims, contesting every assertion of assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and conspiracy. The other named corporate Defendants successfully sought dismissal of the claims against them early in the proceedings. The Hardenberghs did not stop at a simple defense; they turned the legal tables by filing their own counterclaims against Ms. Hartnett, which primarily focused on malicious prosecution. This meant the jury was tasked with weighing claims from both sides of the legal fight.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Pamela K. Hartnett
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): James B. Thorsen | Ann M. Reardon
Defendant(s): Charles Vanevera Hardenbergh | Mari Liza Hardenbergh | several related business entities.
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Thomas K. Plofchan, Jr. | Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr. | Kevin Jermone Funk | Jacqueline Audrey Kramer
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Ms. Hartnett’s legal team presented evidence attempting to prove that the Hardenberghs had both physically harmed their client and then deliberately damaged her reputation. They worked to establish the severity of the alleged assault and the intentional nature of the subsequent verbal attacks, aiming to convince the jury that the Defendants’ conduct was so extreme it warranted substantial punitive damages.
Defense
The defense team for the Hardenberghs maintained that Ms. Hartnett’s claims completely lacked factual basis. They asserted that no assault or battery had occurred and that the defamation allegations were untrue. The defense focused on showing that Ms. Hartnett was the instigator, arguing that the entire legal action was meritless and that Ms. Hartnett’s original complaints to law enforcement had been baseless, forming the core of their malicious prosecution counterclaims.
Jury Verdict
After hearing the evidence and arguments, the jury delivered a verdict that overwhelmingly favored the Defendants on the initial Complaint but confirmed liability on one of the counterclaims.
The jury considered the counts brought by Ms. Hartnett against the Hardenberghs and found in favor of the Defendants on every claim.
Assault and Battery Claims: The jury ruled that Charles V. Hardenbergh was not liable for assault and battery against Pamela K. Hartnett. Likewise, the jury ruled that Mari L. Hardenbergh was not liable for assault and battery.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: The jury found that Charles V. Hardenbergh was not liable for intentionally inflicting emotional distress upon Ms. Hartnett.
Defamation Claims: The jury concluded that neither Charles V. Hardenbergh nor Mari L. Hardenbergh was liable for defamation or defamation per se against Ms. Hartnett.
Statutory Business Conspiracy Claims: The jury determined that neither Charles V. Hardenbergh nor Mari L. Hardenbergh was liable for engaging in a statutory business conspiracy.
The jury on 22nd May 2025 found that Charles V. Hardenbergh and his law firm were liable for defamation against Pamela K. Hartnett, awarding her a total of $200,000 in compensatory damages and $450,000 in punitive damages. Both Charles and Mari L. Hardenbergh were found liable for trespass, resulting in punitive damages of $3,500 and $5,000 respectively, but no compensatory damages. Neither was found liable for assault and battery or for malicious prosecution against Hartnett. However, on counterclaims, the jury determined that Hartnett was liable for malicious prosecution against Mari L. Hardenbergh regarding a December 2019 prosecution, awarding Mari $950,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages. Hartnett was not found liable on the other malicious prosecution counts filed by either defendant.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com