With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". privilege by proving express malice or malice in fact). Pledger ultimately found that a question of fact existed as to whether the defendants’ pre-suit publication of allegedly defamatory statements had been a good-faith attempt at pre-litigation settlement negotiations or whether it had been done with the express intent to injure the plaintiff. Id. at 1328. Accordingly, in the face of contradictory evidence on the question of good faith, the court reversed the lower court’s summary ruling in favor of the defendants. Id. (if the privilege is qualified and there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the privilege may have been exceeded or abused, the issue of fact must be submitted to the jury; citing Axelrod). See also Silver v. Levinson, 648 So.2d 240, 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (<HOLDING>). Citing Echevarria and Pledger, the Palmer Law

A: holding a settlement privilege exists as to thirdparty discovery of settlement negotiations
B: holding that the trial court did not violate due process in considering the defendants motion to dismiss because the defendant had corrected its error in not serving its motion to dismiss on the plaintiff and because the plaintiff had received adequate time to consider and respond to the arguments made in the motion
C: holding that the court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must first determine whether the plaintiff states a claim of a constitutional violation at all and then must determine whether the claimed right was clearly established before proceeding to the qualified immunity question
D: holding that it was premature at the motion to dismiss stage to determine whether defamatory statements made when the defendant allegedly attempted to settle prior to filing suit fell within the criteria for qualified privilege which may attach to good faith settlement negotiations and whether plaintiff can overcome the privilege by proving express malice or malice in fact citing pledger
D.