The case involves Dennis Glynn, a former engineer at Impact Science & Technology, Inc. (IST), who sued IST and EDO Corporation alleging retaliation under the False Claims Act for raising concerns about the performance of counter-IED jammer systems, along with related claims, while IST brought counterclaims for breach of employment and asset purchase agreements, misappropriation of trade secrets, defamation, and other business torts. The district court denied Glynn's motion for summary judgment on protected activity and retaliation issues and granted IST's cross-motion for summary judgment on Glynn's FCA retaliation, post-termination retaliation, declaratory judgment, and Haddle claims. On the counterclaims, the court granted summary judgment to IST on breach of the employment agreement but to Glynn on several others including breach of the asset purchase agreement, fiduciary duty, conversion, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy, while denying summary judgment on misappropriation of trade secrets and violation of New Hampshire's consumer protection statute. As a result, only IST's counterclaims for misappropriation of trade secrets, defamation, and the consumer protection violation survived to proceed to trial, based on the court's assessment of the evidence regarding contractual duties, protected conduct, and potential misuse of proprietary information.
The case arose from a 2007 shipment of steel pipes from China to Baltimore that allegedly suffered damage during storage by terminal operator Rukert, prompting Ferrostaal to sue multiple parties including Rukert for $350,000 in negligence damages under federal maritime jurisdiction. Rukert sought a declaratory judgment limiting any liability to $20,170.91 based on a clause in its warehouse receipt capping recovery at ten times the per-ton monthly storage rate. The court granted the motion, holding that the limitation was enforceable under Maryland law because Ferrostaal received actual notice of the terms, the clause was not ambiguous, and warehousemen may validly restrict liability when parties have equal bargaining power and the provision is not unconscionable.
This case is a putative class action brought by former temporary employees of the Prince George's County Board of Education against the Board, a Board official, and their union (Local 2250), asserting state-law claims related to employment status and an arbitration decision plus federal constitutional claims. The Board and official removed the case to federal court, stating that the union consented, and plaintiffs moved to remand on the ground that the union had not separately documented its consent. The court denied remand, reasoning that the removal statutes require only actual consent (not a separate writing) and that one defendant's notice stating it had obtained the co-defendant's concurrence is sufficient under Fourth Circuit precedent, with Rule 11 providing adequate safeguards against misrepresentation. The court then granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, concluding that the claims were untimely, failed to state plausible federal claims, or were otherwise barred.
The case involves a dispute resolution petition filed by Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC, the current owner of a Maryland steel facility, against the EPA and Maryland Department of the Environment regarding obligations under a 1997 Consent Decree originally entered against Bethlehem Steel Corporation for RCRA, Clean Water Act, and related violations. The core issue was the impact of a 2003 Bankruptcy Sale Order on Severstal's liability for pre-sale hazardous waste releases and its duty to perform a Site Wide Investigation (SWI) including offshore media sampling. The court held that the Bankruptcy Sale Order limits Severstal's liability under the Consent Decree to post-April 23, 2003 releases only, but that the obligation to conduct the SWI remains a separate, assumed liability not extinguished by the sale. The court retained jurisdiction to address the SWI's scope after the parties submit a report within 45 days.
This case involves environmental nonprofit organizations and nearby residents suing Severstal Sparrows Point LLC and ArcelorMittal USA Inc. for alleged violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Clean Water Act, and related Maryland laws at a former steel manufacturing facility on the Chesapeake Bay, seeking declaratory, injunctive, and penalty relief. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of jurisdiction and failure to state claims. The court granted the motions as to Counts I, III, IV, V, and VI, primarily because the plaintiffs' pre-suit notice letter failed to adequately identify specific permit violations or ongoing discharges as required by federal regulations, and because prior bankruptcy proceedings and a consent decree limited successor liability. The court denied the motions as to Counts II and VII, allowing those claims to proceed.
In Scott v. Nuvell Financial Services LLC, plaintiffs Randolph Scott and Gladys Gardner sued Nuvell Financial Services, Nuvell National Auto Finance, and GMAC, alleging five counts of statutory and contractual violations arising from the repossession and sale of their vehicles. The complaints claimed that the defendants misrepresented the sales as public auctions when they were actually private, thereby violating Maryland's Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, and related contract terms. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all counts after determining that the Tuesday auctions at Manheim, which were advertised in the Baltimore Sun, open to the public with a refundable deposit for non-dealers, and conducted regularly, qualified as public sales under the applicable law and contracts. The core reasoning focused on the uncontroverted facts that the auctions met the criteria for public sales, including public notice and accessibility, which defeated the foundational premise of the plaintiffs' claims.
