Edward Skottowe Northrop

The case involved an African American couple denied lodging at a Maryland motel in 1988 on the stated ground that it did not rent to local residents; after testers confirmed differential treatment by race, the plaintiffs sued the operators under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 2000a seeking declaratory relief, an injunction, and compensatory and punitive damages. A jury found that the motel had violated § 1981 and awarded the plaintiffs one dollar in compensatory damages; the district court entered judgment for defendants on the § 2000a claim and denied injunctive relief. On remand from the Fourth Circuit for reconsideration of the plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 in light of Farrar v. Hobby, the court held that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties and awarded them $24,511.09 in fees and expenses, applying the catalyst theory and limiting recovery to hours reasonably expended before an informal settlement offer became known.

civil rights

In Jackson v. Roseman, the plaintiff filed a state medical malpractice claim against two doctors and an HMO in Maryland's Health Claims Arbitration Office, alleging negligence in the treatment of his cancer and seeking to hold the HMO vicariously liable. The HMO petitioned for removal to federal court, arguing that the claims were preempted by ERISA because they related to an employee welfare benefit plan. The court dismissed the removal petition and granted the motions to remand, holding that the well-pleaded complaint asserted only state common-law negligence claims that did not fall within ERISA's complete preemption provision for civil enforcement actions. The reasoning centered on the conclusion that vicarious liability for medical negligence does not sufficiently relate to the administration of the ERISA plan to trigger federal question jurisdiction or preemption under 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a).

healthcareprocedurefederal power

The case involved James Yates, a Black man, suing the Hagerstown Lodge No. 212, Moose International, and a lodge official under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, and 1985(3) after he was allegedly denied guest access to the lodge facilities and membership due to race, despite meeting the stated criteria and being accompanied by a long-time member. The defendants moved to dismiss the six-count complaint. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, finding that some allegations adequately stated claims involving property interests under § 1982 and conspiracy under § 1985(3) while others failed to meet pleading requirements or were barred by doctrines such as intracorporate conspiracy.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Richard Blackwell, who had contracted with the Town of Delmar to serve as a Specification Writer/Cost Estimator and whose contract was terminated shortly after he ended a consensual sexual relationship with his supervisor, defendant Linda Fairbank. Blackwell sued the town and two officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of property and liberty interests without due process, along with claims for abusive discharge, breach of contract, and civil conspiracy. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, dismissing the abusive discharge and breach of contract claims with prejudice while allowing the § 1983 and conspiracy claims to proceed. It reasoned that the contract could create a protected property interest supporting the due process claim, that the breach of contract action was time-barred under Maryland law, and that the abusive discharge claim failed to identify a clear public policy violation, while the conspiracy claim survived because the § 1983 claim was not dismissed.

civil rightslabor & employmentproperty

In Chavis v. Smith, petitioner William Daniel Chavis filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claiming that Maryland unconstitutionally failed to credit time he served in a Georgia prison towards his Maryland sentence, specifically fourteen months of "dead time" after a Georgia conviction was vacated. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the petition in part by ordering credit for that period of time served. The court reasoned that the claim directly affected the duration of the petitioner's imprisonment so it was not procedurally defaulted, and that Maryland statutes and regulations supported crediting the time under the facts presented rather than an interpretation that would render the law meaningless.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by Carol Pinder, individually and as representative of her deceased children's estates, against a police officer and the City of Cambridge after her ex-boyfriend was arrested for breaking into her home and threatening her but was released on his own recognizance without notice to her, then set the house on fire killing the three children. The complaint alleged violations of equal protection and substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment via 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, plus Maryland state claims for wrongful death and survival actions. The court denied the motion to dismiss the constitutional claims against both defendants and the state claims against the officer, but granted dismissal of the state claims against the city, reasoning that the allegations could support a special relationship or state-created danger theory creating a duty to protect and that qualified immunity and municipal liability issues did not warrant dismissal at this stage.

civil rightstorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a First Amendment challenge by Revere National Corporation, an outdoor advertising company, to Prince George's County's zoning ordinance regulating signs, including a 1991 amendment that banned all new billboards (defined as off-site signs). The plaintiff argued that the ordinance unconstitutionally favored commercial speech over noncommercial speech and made impermissible content-based distinctions among noncommercial messages. The court granted the plaintiff's renewed motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant's motion to reconsider, holding that the ordinance violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The core reasoning relied on Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, which prohibits regulations that prefer commercial over noncommercial speech or impose content-based restrictions on signs, rendering the billboard ban invalid as applied.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute where a yacht owner, after authorizing engine repairs on his vessel "Hunter," was sued by the repair company for payment and then brought a third-party claim against his insurer for coverage of those costs and related expenses. Following a bench trial, the court previously found the engine damage was a covered loss under the policy rather than gradual deterioration, holding the insurer liable for repairs, defense costs, and certain fees. In this memorandum, the court denied the insurer's motion for a new trial, concluding the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence and that litigation expenses were recoverable as foreseeable consequences of the insurer's breach or as collateral litigation costs. The court also granted the owner's petition for attorney's fees and costs under Rule 54(d), subject to the clerk's review, while rejecting recovery of certain service charges.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved claims by Josephine Cherrey against her employer, Thompson Steel Co., under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII, and the Equal Pay Act, alleging that the elimination of her inside sales clerk position and her transfer to a lower-paying payroll clerk role constituted age and sex discrimination, that she was paid less than male counterparts for similar work from 1980 to 1989, and related equal pay violations. After a two-day trial and at the close of the plaintiff's case, the court granted the defendant's motion for judgment on partial findings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c). The court weighed the evidence presented in the plaintiff's case in chief, including exhibits and the pretrial order, and concluded that she failed to demonstrate any age or sex discrimination or a violation of the Equal Pay Act, treating the matter as a reduction in workforce where her position was eliminated due to restructuring and finding the roles compared were not equivalent.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case centered on a dispute over payment for engine repairs performed on a yacht. Johnson & Towers sued the vessel owner for the cost of authorized repairs plus contractual service charges after the owner failed to pay, alleging a valid contract existed. The owner counterclaimed against the repair company for negligence causing the damage and filed a third-party claim against his insurer asserting coverage for the repairs under the yacht policy. The court determined the repair company had not caused the damage through negligence, the owner was liable to the repair company under the contract terms, and the insurer was obligated to cover the repair invoice amount along with the owner's reasonable attorney's fees and certain costs, but not the repair company's attorney's fees or interest charges.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

The case involves a defamation lawsuit brought by National Life Insurance Company, a large mutual life insurer, against financial newsletter publisher Phillips Publishing, writer Richard Band, and The Wall Street Digest over articles and promotional materials that criticized insurance industry ratings, including National Life's A+ rating from Standard & Poor's, and warned about risks from junk bonds and real estate investments. The defendants moved for summary judgment on whether the plaintiff qualified as a public figure, the applicable fault standard, and whether actual malice was shown. The court granted the motion, holding that the plaintiff was a public figure required to prove malice under the New York Times standard, that the statements were not commercial speech triggering a lower negligence standard, and that no clear and convincing evidence of malice existed because the defendants relied on apparently reliable sources without obvious reasons to doubt their accuracy. The core reasoning centered on First Amendment protections for speech about matters of public concern and the lack of evidence that the defendants knowingly or recklessly published false information.

free speechtorts & liability

This case involved Maryland National Bank seeking to recover on a defaulted $88,000 loan secured by a vessel, the Tanicorp I, through in rem and in personam claims under admiralty jurisdiction after defendants stopped payments in 1990. The court had previously entered default against the defendants for failing to respond and confirmed the interlocutory sale of the vessel. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds including improper service, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim, while also seeking sanctions; the plaintiff opposed and moved for final judgment. The court denied the motions to dismiss and for sanctions from both sides, treating the dismissal motion in part as one to set aside default but finding no good cause shown and the procedural and jurisdictional objections without merit, then granted the plaintiff's motion for final judgment under Rule 55(b).

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

This case under the Federal Tort Claims Act involved a claim by a mother and her minor son against the United States for injuries the child suffered at birth due to alleged medical negligence at a military hospital. The child sustained a severe stroke during labor after doctors failed to diagnose placenta previa, conducted the wrong blood test for incompatibility, and proceeded with vaginal delivery despite heart monitoring irregularities. The court rejected the government's statute of limitations defense, finding the claim timely based on when the parents discovered the injury, and determined that the doctors' actions caused permanent brain damage requiring extensive future care. It awarded damages for medical needs, therapies, and related costs without offsets for speculative future earnings.

torts & liabilityhealthcarefederal power

In Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Levin, a federal district court considered a motion by plaintiff Owens-Illinois for a preliminary injunction to halt a Maryland state court judge from proceeding with consolidated trials involving thousands of asbestos-related tort claims. The plaintiff argued that the consolidation plan violated its due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by potentially binding it to adverse rulings without the protections of a class action. Applying the four-factor test from Blackwelder Furniture Co. v. Seilig Manufacturing Co., the court denied the motion, finding that litigation expenses did not constitute irreparable harm, the balance of hardships favored the state’s interest in managing its massive docket backlog, and principles of comity and abstention weighed against federal interference in ongoing state judicial proceedings.

procedurecivil rightsfederal power

This case involved plaintiff Robert Conkwright, a 60-year-old employee laid off by Westinghouse Electric Corp. in a 1985 reduction in force at its Maryland facilities following the loss of a major defense contract. Conkwright sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act alleging his selection for layoff was based on age rather than performance, and also asserted claims under ERISA for interference with pension rights plus state-law claims for abusive discharge and breach of employment contract. The court granted Westinghouse's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact because the evidence showed layoffs were determined by documented low performance ratings reviewed by multiple managers for nondiscriminatory reasons, with no proof of pretext or retaliatory motive. It further held there was insufficient evidence to support the ERISA claim or to establish an enforceable employment contract or abusive discharge under Maryland law.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this diversity action, Sun Bank sued First National Bank of Maryland, the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, and First Omni Bank after suffering a $150,000 loss from forged checks deposited by nonparty Jack Trotti into a new account at Sun Bank; the checks were drawn against a VISA charge-check account at First Omni and processed through the other banks. Sun Bank claimed the defendants failed to exercise ordinary care in presentment, notification of dishonor, and return of the forged $150,000 check. Following a bench trial, the court found that Sun Bank was in the best position to prevent the loss because its employees failed to follow internal procedures, ignored wire notices of dishonor, and did not use available tools like account searches or service wires to identify and hold the fraudulent deposit, despite multiple red flags of uncollected funds activity. The court concluded Sun Bank's negligence substantially contributed to the loss, barring recovery under applicable banking rules, and entered judgment for the defendants while granting their counterclaims for costs and attorney's fees.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a breach of contract claim by Edgcomb Metals against Eastmet Corporation, a debtor in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, arising from two post-petition agreements for the sale of stainless steel coil. Edgcomb had filed an administrative claim in the bankruptcy court for the same alleged breach before bringing this action in district court. The court granted Eastmet's motion to refer the case to the bankruptcy court under 28 U.S.C. § 157 and denied Edgcomb's related motions for default judgment or other relief. The core reasoning was that the claim concerned post-petition contracts affecting the administration of the bankruptcy estate, making referral appropriate under the framework established after Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipeline Co. and the 1984 Bankruptcy Amendments, as the matter was integral to restructuring debtor-creditor rights.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerned a corporation held in civil contempt for refusing to produce documents demanded by a June 1986 grand jury subpoena investigating illegal practices in prescription drug manufacturing. After more than a year of litigation and denial of the corporation's certiorari petition, the district court addressed the government's request for compensatory damages and attorney's fees arising from the contempt. The court granted the request in part, holding that civil contempt sanctions may compensate an injured party for actual losses caused by noncompliance with a court order, that such awards are not discretionary once losses are shown, and that the contemnor's good-faith legal arguments do not bar recovery.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a landlord suing the guarantors of a lease after the tenant company filed for bankruptcy and rejected the lease. The guarantors moved for partial summary judgment to cap their damages at the limit set by the Bankruptcy Code for claims against the bankrupt lessee. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the Bankruptcy Code expressly preserves the liability of third-party guarantors even after the debtor is discharged, and that Maryland law treats guaranties as independent obligations triggered by the principal's default.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case arose when Equitable Bank sued investors for breach of contract to recover on loans financing failed oil and gas limited partnerships, prompting the investors to file counterclaims against the bank and non-bank entities for violations of federal and state securities laws, common law fraud, and related claims. The court addressed motions to dismiss the counterclaims for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, to join the non-bank parties, and to transfer the case to California. It denied the motion to dismiss, granted joinder, and denied transfer, holding that Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 authorized nationwide service of process based on the defendants' U.S. contacts and that venue was proper under the same provision. The court further reasoned that transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) was unwarranted because the parties faced equal inconvenience in either forum and the interests of justice favored retaining the case where jurisdiction and venue were established.

business & regulatoryprocedure