Benson Everett Legg

This case involves the United States seeking an ex parte pre-trial restraining order under 21 U.S.C. § 853(e) to preserve assets potentially subject to criminal forfeiture in a prosecution for bank fraud and conspiracy. The court granted the motion and issued a detailed order freezing specified real property, businesses, bank accounts, and other assets, appointing the U.S. Marshals Service to oversee operations, and requiring the defendants to repatriate any foreign assets derived from the alleged conduct. The core reasoning is that the grand jury's indictment establishes probable cause sufficient for the order, which is mandatory once requested to prevent dissipation of directly forfeitable property and substitute assets alike, with third-party rights to be addressed in ancillary post-trial proceedings under § 853(n).

criminal lawprocedureproperty

This case involves the death of Ryan Meyers, who had bipolar disorder, during a police response to a family fight at his home where he was armed with a baseball bat. His parents sued Baltimore County police officers and the department, claiming excessive force from multiple Taser deployments used to subdue him. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the officers' use of force was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment given the circumstances, including the immediate threat posed by the armed and resisting individual, the need to disarm him, and the progression of his resistance during the encounter.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involves the government's motion to modify a pre-indictment protective order under 21 U.S.C. § 853(e)(1)(B) to restrain additional assets traceable to fraud proceeds and to require the defendant to deliver certain property to the U.S. Marshals Service. The court determined there was probable cause that three bank accounts, luxury purchases from stores like Saks Fifth Avenue and Prada, and specific diamond jewelry items were traceable to an account holding $8.4 million in fraud proceeds and thus forfeitable. Evidence indicated the defendant had violated prior restraining orders by dissipating assets, including selling a Bentley and spending on non-essential items, and had not fully accounted for other traceable property despite an accounting order. The court concluded that a mere restraining order was insufficient to preserve the assets and therefore ordered the accounts frozen and directed delivery of the listed items within five days.

criminal lawprocedure

This ERISA case concerned whether claimant Carolyn Flores was entitled to statutory penalties and attorney's fees from insurer LINA after LINA initially denied her claim for continuing short-term disability benefits under an employer-sponsored plan. The parties settled the underlying benefits dispute after Flores sued, with LINA agreeing to pay full STD and partial LTD benefits. The court denied penalties under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c) because LINA was not the plan administrator and was not obligated to produce the requested internal claim manuals or procedures. It granted partial fees under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g), however, on the ground that the lawsuit served as the catalyst prompting LINA to reconsider and pay the claim.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

This case involves a former probationary teacher at Ocean City Elementary School who sued the Worcester County Board of Education and school administrators after her contract was not renewed. She alleged pregnancy discrimination, pregnancy harassment, race discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII, along with equal rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and negligent supervision under Maryland law, claiming that negative evaluations, reprimands, and heightened scrutiny began after she announced her pregnancy and engagement to an African-American man. The defendants filed motions to dismiss all counts. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, allowing certain Title VII and § 1983 claims to proceed while dismissing others, including some claims against individual defendants and counts lacking sufficient factual support or timely filing. The core reasoning focused on whether the complaint stated plausible claims under the applicable legal standards for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and supervisory liability, while addressing issues like protected activity under Title VII and the scope of individual capacity claims.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case was an employment discrimination suit brought by a former Sears assistant store manager under Title VII, alleging religious discrimination based on her Muslim faith and retaliation for complaining about it after she was fired. The court granted Sears's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The court found that Sears had accommodated the plaintiff's requests not to work on Fridays and religious holidays, that she had not exhausted her retaliation claim because it was not raised in her EEOC charge, and that the termination for improperly giving her discount card to an associate was based on a legitimate non-discriminatory reason with no evidence of pretext.

labor & employmentcivil rightsreligious liberty

This case involves the death of Baltimore firefighter recruit Racheal Wilson during a live burn training exercise, leading her estate to sue the city and fire department officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating her Fourteenth Amendment rights, along with related state constitutional and tort claims. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the federal claim and dismissed the state claims for lack of jurisdiction. The reasoning centered on the fact that § 1983 actions require intentional deprivation of constitutional rights, whereas the allegations here described reckless conduct in training that amounted to an unsafe workplace, similar to a prior Fourth Circuit case, without specific intent to harm, leaving plaintiffs to pursue remedies under state workers' compensation and tort law.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case arose from an employment dispute in which plaintiff Roger Traversa alleged that his former employer, Northrop Grumman, discriminated against him due to his sleep apnea when it terminated him in 2004. After the Maryland Commission on Human Relations investigated and found no disability discrimination, Traversa sued five Commission employees in their individual capacities, claiming violations of his equal protection rights under § 1983 based on race and disability, conspiracy, and various negligence counts for delaying the investigation and ruling against him. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted the motion, holding that Traversa failed to allege plausible facts showing intentional discrimination or differential treatment compared to similarly situated individuals, that the Commission employees were entitled to immunity for their adjudicatory functions, and that no legal duty supported the negligence claims.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves a legal malpractice claim by Dr. Jefferson J. Katims and Neurotron, Inc. against the Virginia-based law firm Millen, White, Zelano & Branigan, P.C. (MWZB) for allegedly allowing U.S. Patent No. 5,806,522 to expire due to non-payment of maintenance fees and failing to notify the plaintiffs. The court addressed the firm's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. It concluded that it lacked both general and specific jurisdiction under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process requirements because MWZB had no physical presence or continuous contacts in Maryland and its limited representation of Maryland clients, including communications with Dr. Katims, did not constitute purposeful availment of the forum. The court therefore determined it could not exercise jurisdiction and indicated it would transfer the case to an appropriate jurisdiction absent objection.

proceduretorts & liability

In Hampel v. United States, pro se plaintiff Natalya Hampel sued the federal government over the 2002 death of her husband, a veteran, bringing claims for negligent medical care at VA facilities, constitutional violations from denial of VA benefits, invasion of privacy through false medical statements and competency attempts, and warrantless surveillance motivated by racial animus. The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss all counts. It held that the medical malpractice claim under the FTCA failed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff had not complied with Maryland's Health Care Malpractice Claims Act prerequisites; claims challenging VA benefits decisions were outside federal court jurisdiction due to the exclusive review scheme for veterans' benefits; privacy and emotional distress claims were barred as intentional torts excluded from the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity; and the surveillance claim lacked plausible factual support and sought damages for constitutional violations not permitted against the United States.

federal powerhealthcarecivil rightstorts & liability

This case involved two former employees of a small seafood company who alleged that the owner repeatedly groped them, made sexual comments, and offered one employee money for sexual acts, leading to claims under Title VII, Maryland's Fair Employment Practices Act, and common-law torts including assault, battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court dismissed the Title VII claim because the company did not meet the statute's 15-employee threshold for coverage as an employer and also dismissed the intentional infliction claim for lack of sufficient outrageousness. The remaining state-law claims proceeded to trial, where the jury found for the plaintiffs on most counts and awarded damages; on post-trial motions, the court granted the defendants' motion in part, vacated the original judgment, and entered an amended judgment while exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

The case involved Jeffrey Johnson, former Director of Finance at ISSI, seeking a declaratory judgment that he was not personally liable for the company's unpaid federal payroll taxes, known as trust fund taxes. The United States counterclaimed, seeking a judgment against Johnson for the unpaid taxes of over $1 million. The court granted summary judgment to the government after Johnson failed to respond to the motion, finding based on uncontroverted evidence that Johnson was a responsible person with authority over financial matters who willfully failed to remit the taxes as required by the Internal Revenue Code.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

In Bernstein v. Maryland, a sitting circuit court judge challenged the state's mandatory judicial retirement at age 70 under the Maryland Constitution, claiming it created arbitrary classifications between judges who reach that age in office and those who might run for election afterward, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and stayed the federal case rather than ruling on the state's motion to dismiss. It did so because the dispute turned on unresolved questions of state constitutional interpretation regarding retirement, appointment, and election eligibility for judges over 70, which the court certified to the Maryland Court of Appeals for a definitive answer before addressing the federal claim.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved a declaratory judgment action in federal court arising from an interpleader dispute over workers' compensation annuity payments originally due to Lonnie Hamm under a 1990 Maine settlement. Hamm purported to assign six annual payments to Rapid Settlements via a 2004 agreement approved by a Louisiana state court order, which directed the insurer USF&G and annuity issuer to redirect payments to Rapid's assignee. USF&G sought a ruling that the assignment and Louisiana order were invalid and did not affect its obligations. The court granted USF&G's motion for summary judgment and denied the cross-motion, holding that the Maine Workers' Compensation Act prohibits assignment of such payments, that the Louisiana order did not bind USF&G because it was not a party and lacked proper notice, and that the transfer therefore had no effect on the parties' rights. The core reasoning rested on the anti-assignment provisions of Maine law and principles limiting the reach of judgments against non-parties.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned a longtime Baltimore County police officer who experienced a single seizure in 1996, returned to full duty after medical clearance, and later testified at a colleague's hearing challenging forced disability retirement for seizures; shortly afterward, the police chief ordered the officer to undergo fitness-for-duty exams including an EEG. The officer sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of his constitutional right to privacy, and under the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming the orders were retaliatory or discriminatory. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted the defendants' motion on the remaining § 1983 claims and denied the plaintiff's motion, concluding that the department's actions were justified by legitimate concerns about fitness for duty and did not infringe protected privacy interests. The ADA claims were not resolved on summary judgment and the court scheduled further proceedings.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case arose from a house fire allegedly caused by negligent installation of a fireplace by defendant Builder Services Group, Inc. (BSG), with plaintiff Erie Insurance Exchange bringing a subrogation claim after paying its insureds' claim. BSG moved for summary judgment on grounds of evidence spoliation, arguing it was prejudiced because Erie, through its contractors, had destroyed all physical evidence of the fire seventeen months before notifying BSG of the claim. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, applying the Fourth Circuit's test from Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., which requires either egregious conduct by the spoliator or irreparable prejudice to the defendant. The court found Erie's failure to preserve or notify timely was negligent and that BSG had no opportunity to inspect the scene or evaluate the plaintiff's theory that a safety strip was omitted. No lesser sanction could remedy the prejudice under the spoliation doctrine.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, the City of Baltimore sued Wells Fargo Bank under the Fair Housing Act, alleging that the bank engaged in reverse redlining by targeting predominantly black neighborhoods with predatory mortgage loans, which led to foreclosures and resulting city costs like lost tax revenue and increased public services. Although the City lacked a direct claim as it did not borrow from the bank, it asserted indirect harm. Wells Fargo moved to dismiss, challenging the City's standing and the sufficiency of the claims under disparate treatment and disparate impact theories. The court denied the motion, finding that affidavits from former employees provided sufficient evidence for the disparate treatment claim to proceed, and that standing issues were intertwined with the merits, warranting full discovery before revisiting at summary judgment.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved Mitri Habash, owner of Club Vissage, a nightclub in Salisbury, Maryland, who sued the City of Salisbury, its police chief and an officer, Wicomico County, the County Liquor Board, and related officials. Habash alleged that defendants selectively enforced laws and regulations against his club, including through heavy police presence and license suspension threats, because its hip-hop nights attracted a predominantly Black clientele, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, holding that Habash, like the plaintiffs in the companion Orgain case, failed to produce evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that his club was treated differently from similarly situated establishments or that defendants acted with racial animus. The decision relied on the legal standard requiring proof of differential treatment and intentional discrimination, as affirmed by the Fourth Circuit in the prior case.

civil rights

This case arose from a house fire allegedly caused by faulty construction work performed by the defendants, whom Erie Insurance Exchange sued in state court to recover damages as the homeowners' insurer. The defendants removed the action to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, and Erie initially represented that complete diversity existed. Months later, Erie moved to remand, claiming it was an unincorporated association whose Florida policyholders made it a citizen of Florida as well, destroying diversity. The court denied the motion, holding that policyholders are merely customers rather than members whose citizenship determines that of the exchange, so diversity jurisdiction remained proper.

procedure

The case concerns a dispute over post-termination compensation allegedly owed to former CareFirst executive Leon Kaplan under his employment contract, including amounts governed by ERISA, after his 2008 termination without cause. Kaplan filed a federal ERISA claim under § 502(a)(1)(B) along with related state-law breach of contract claims, while CareFirst and intervenor Insurance Commissioner Tyler moved to dismiss on Younger abstention grounds amid ongoing state administrative review. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that abstention was required because a parallel state proceeding before the Maryland Insurance Administration was examining whether the proposed payments violated Maryland insurance regulations on compensation for nonprofit health service plans. The core reasoning was that the state process implicated important regulatory interests, offered an adequate opportunity for review through administrative and judicial channels, and federal adjudication would improperly interfere, consistent with the court's earlier abstention in a related case involving CareFirst's former CEO.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenthealthcare