District Court, D. Maryland — appointed by Jimmy Carter
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Hecht
District Court, D. Maryland · 1992-07-27 · cited 16×
The case involves the Resolution Trust Corporation, acting as assignee of a failed federally chartered savings and loan, suing ten former officers and directors for approving six speculative commercial real estate loans between 1983 and 1985 that caused losses exceeding $32 million, with claims for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, gross negligence, and breach of contract but no allegations of self-dealing or fraud. The court ruled on multiple pending motions to dismiss, for summary judgment, and to strike affirmative defenses, addressing issues including the statute of limitations under FIRREA, the doctrine of adverse domination, and the standard of care applicable to the defendants. The core reasoning was that the action was timely because RTC has six years from the conservatorship date to file suit if the claims were viable then, Maryland law limits liability to gross negligence, and adverse domination principles from other jurisdictions support tolling the limitations period in the absence of controlling state precedent.
business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability
United States v. Calle
District Court, D. Maryland · 1992-06-23 · cited 8×
In United States v. Calle, defendant Nefdale Calle pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and faced a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(ii). The government moved for a four-level downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 based on Calle's cooperation, including testimony against co-defendants, which would have produced a sentence below the statutory minimum. The court denied the motion and sentenced within the applicable guideline range, reasoning that the judge must independently assess whether a departure furthers the sentencing purposes in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2), ensures certainty and fairness, avoids unwarranted disparities among similarly situated defendants, and reflects the defendant's actual offense conduct rather than accepting the government's recommendation wholesale.
criminal law
RCO Investment Co. v. Belair 301-50 S.W. Quadrant Commercial Properties, Inc.
District Court, D. Maryland · 1992-02-14
This case involved an appeal by creditor RCO Investment Company from a bankruptcy court's denial of its motions to dismiss (or abstain from) a Chapter 11 petition filed by debtor Belair 301-50 S.W. Quadrant Commercial Properties, Inc., and for relief from the automatic stay. The debtor, a Maryland corporation whose sole asset was a joint development project with a closely related entity (CofC), filed its petition on the eve of a foreclosure sale, shortly after CofC's prior Chapter 11 case had been dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute, pay fees, or propose a confirmable plan. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's rulings, holding that the petition was filed in bad faith under the standards of Carolin Corp. v. Miller, because the alter-ego relationship between the entities allowed imputation of CofC's prior bad faith, the timing of the filing evidenced subjective bad faith, and there was no realistic prospect of reorganization. The court therefore granted RCO's motion to dismiss the petition for cause under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b).
business & regulatoryprocedureproperty
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Goldberg
District Court, D. Maryland · 1992-01-10 · cited 8×
This diversity action involves plaintiffs, as principal creditors of several debtor limited partnerships, suing former general partners and a successor corporation on state-law claims including breach of promissory note, guarantee, fraudulent transfer, and tortious interference with contract, arising from unpaid loans. The debtor partnerships had filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, and defendants moved to refer the action to the Bankruptcy Court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) on grounds that it was related to the bankruptcy proceedings and would promote judicial economy. The court denied the referral motion, finding that while the action was sufficiently related to the bankruptcies under the Pacor test to permit referral, the plaintiffs' timely jury demand rendered the proceeding non-core and made referral inefficient, with no compelling showing of practical benefit to the bankruptcy administration or reorganization plans.
procedurebusiness & regulatory
Wileman v. Frank
District Court, D. Maryland · 1991-12-10 · cited 5×
This case involved a Title VII claim by plaintiff Wileman against the United States Postal Service alleging sex and race discrimination. The court previously entered judgment for the plaintiff on the sex discrimination claim but against her on the race discrimination claim. In the present opinion, the court addresses the plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs, using the lodestar method derived from the twelve Johnson factors to assess reasonable hourly rates and hours expended. The court determines that the number of hours claimed is largely reasonable given the results obtained, while addressing objections to research time, hours spent on the unsuccessful race claim, and certain duplicative entries, and makes limited reductions such as adjusting legal assistant rates. The core reasoning relies on precedents like Hensley v. Eckerhart and E.E.O.C. v. Service News Co., which require a fully compensatory fee for prevailing parties in Title VII actions based on hours reasonably expended.
civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure
Mylan Laboratories, Inc. v. Akzo, N.V.
District Court, D. Maryland · 1991-08-15 · cited 231×
The case involved Mylan Laboratories, a generic drug manufacturer, suing other manufacturers and FDA employees for allegedly paying bribes to FDA officials to expedite approvals of the defendants' abbreviated new drug applications while delaying Mylan's, along with submitting false information and sharing confidential data. Mylan asserted claims under RICO for racketeering through bribery and obstruction, as well as Sherman Act antitrust conspiracies and a state unfair competition claim. The court considered motions to dismiss these counts, applying standards that require accepting well-pleaded facts as true while examining whether the allegations sufficiently showed a RICO enterprise nexus, pattern of activity, and antitrust injury tied to the FDA approval process.
criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryhealthcare