Durham officials want ex-councilwoman’s defamation lawsuit dismissed. What we know.
A lawsuit filed by a former Durham City Council member against the city and several officials returned to court this week as the defendants sought to have the claims dismissed.
During a three-hour Superior Court hearing Tuesday, the defense argued there was insufficient evidence to prove that city employees defamed Monique Holsey-Hyman in 2023 after she was accused of extortion and campaign finance violations.
Judge Timothy Wilson did not issue an immediate ruling on the dismissal requests, saying a decision would be made later.
Holsey-Hyman, who was appointed to an open seat on the City Council in 2022, filed a lawsuit last March against the city and several individuals alleging defamation, libel and retaliation. The lawsuit stems from accusations that she had solicited campaign contributions from a developer in exchange for her vote on an annexation request. The state Bureau of Investigation, which investigated the accusations, found “no evidence” to support them.
The lawsuit names the defendants:
Jarrod Edens, the developer who made the allegation, and his company, Edens Investments
Mayor Pro Tem Mark-Anthony Middleton
City Attorney Kimberly Rehberg
Durham Planning Director Sara Young
Former City Council member Jillian Johnson
Holsey-Hyman later lost her bid for election to the council and claims in the lawsuit that the fallout caused her to suffer from “several emotional distress” and embarrassment, and damaged her moral character and reputation.
The arguments against the dismissal
On Tuesday, Holsey-Hyman’s attorney, James Johnson of Raleigh, opposed the defendants’ motion to dismiss, arguing that the defamation case involved actual malice and a reckless disregard for the truth. He said that sharing the alleged defamatory information without verifying its accuracy was just as damaging as if it had originated from the source.
The lawsuit states that during a phone call on the day of the annexation vote, Holsey-Hyman and Edens joked about him supporting her campaign that year — to which she replied that she “didn’t want to end up in jail.”
The annexation request was rejected at the meeting, and five days later, Edens told Young that Holsey-Hyman had asked him for a campaign contribution in exchange for her vote, according to the lawsuit.
At the hearing, Johnson cited a 2023 letter sent by Rehberg to council members that he said implied Holsey-Hyman was already guilty before fact-checking the information or contacting her to ask about the allegations.
“Actual malice is a state of mind,” Johnson said during the hearing. “We’ve got to be able to prove it’s not objective, we have to prove it subjectively. [Rehberg] either knew it was false, or she was entertaining serious doubts about what she was saying.”
In the letter, Rehberg wrote about the allegation reported to her by Young but did not name the developer or Holsey-Hyman and wrote that she did not know if the allegation was true. The next day, Rehberg sent a follow-up letter by email saying that the goal in sharing the allegation was to “protect and advance the best interests of the City of Durham.”
“The City Council should be concerned about the threats to the integrity of its work and to public confidence posed by allegations of corruption,” Rehberg wrote. “It is unlikely that developer would report conduct that has no factual basis or to maliciously cause harm, particularly a developer who regularly brings matters before the City.”
Johnson said that the damages to Holsey-Hyman were “significant.
“That’s a very serious allegation. It really boils down to actual malice,” he said.
Arguments to dismiss the claims
The defense sought to dismiss the claims against Young, Rehberg, Johnson, Middleton and the city of Durham because of 11 reasons, including that:
- The alleged unidentified statements of Young and Rehberg don’t support a defamation claim
- Rehberg’s letter doesn’t identify Holsey-Hyman
- The complaint discloses facts that defeat the actual malice argument
- Rehberg has public official immunity
- Middleton and Johnson had legislative immunity in presenting a censure motion against Holsey-Hyman
- The city of Durham cannot be held liable for damages or be party to a civil conspiracy
La-Deidre Matthews, one of the attorneys representing Rehberg, said the city attorney was “just doing her job” when she notified the Durham City Council.
“When we’re looking at defamatory statements or alleged defamatory statements, they must be evaluated in context to determine whether it is defamatory,” Matthews said and added that in her letter, Rehberg went to “great lengths to make sure that she would not identify the plaintiff or any other council members or Eden, the developer who made the report
“It is clear that she’s just fulfilling her job duties and it’s not meant to be defamatory or to repeat allegations of extortion,” Matthews said.
Holsey-Hyman was present at the hearing along with supporters but did not speak.
On January 15, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder dismissed Holsey-Hyman’s federal claim that the defendants retaliated against her for exercising her First Amendment right when she voted against Edens’ annexation request. The federal court remanded, or sent back, the case to Durham County Superior Court.
This story was originally published April 2, 2025 at 7:57 AM.