Frederic N. Smalkin

This case arose from an insurance company's subrogation claims against Bank of America seeking recovery of funds from a series of fraudulent checks totaling around $76,000 that a thieving employee caused to be drawn on the insured's account and deposited at the bank, with proceeds later wire-transferred out. The court dismissed Count 1 for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy fell below the $75,000 diversity threshold under 28 U.S.C. section 1332. The remaining counts alleging money had and received, conversion, unjust enrichment, and constructive trust were dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, as the bank retained none of the proceeds and UCC section 3-420(a)(i) barred conversion actions by the check issuer.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case concerned whether an insurer had a duty to defend or indemnify its insured auto dealership in a Maryland state court class action alleging intentional overcharging of customers on registration and titling fees, with claims for conversion, breach of contract, and violations of state credit and consumer protection laws. The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment and declared that no coverage or defense obligation existed under the garage liability policies. The policies provided coverage only for accidental bodily injury or property damage arising from garage operations and excluded expected or intended harms, while the separate TILA endorsement applied solely to claims brought exclusively under a specific federal Truth-in-Lending Act provision that was not asserted in the underlying suit; the claims instead involved knowing economic loss not qualifying as an accident or covered property damage.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Fox v. Encounters International, plaintiff Natilya Fox sued a mail-order bride service, its founder, and her ex-husband, claiming fraud, violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, misappropriation of likeness, and negligence against the service and founder for misrepresentations about her husband, failure to disclose rights under the federal Mail Order Bride Act, and unauthorized use of her photo on the website; separate claims against her ex-husband involved assault and emotional distress. The court treated the defendants' pre-discovery motion as one to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and granted it only as to the VCPA count while denying it on the fraud, misappropriation, and negligence claims. The core reasoning was that the complaint sufficiently alleged the required elements for those three claims, including a special relationship and foreseeable risk of harm for negligence based on the Mail Order Bride Act and the plaintiff's reports of abuse.

immigrationbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case concerned Mr. Schoofield's application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, alleging disability from a heart attack, stress, and intestinal issues beginning in 1997. After an ALJ denied the claims following multiple hearings and an earlier grant of benefits that was vacated, the district court reviewed the final agency decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court determined that the ALJ had not provided a meaningful explanation of the findings on mental impairments or properly applied the sequential evaluation process and legal standards, including evaluation of listing criteria and medical evidence. It therefore reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case to the agency for further proceedings to address these deficiencies.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure

In Lewis v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a former sales representative sued her employer and two supervisors for gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as various state tort claims and unpaid wages. The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the court reviewed evidence that the plaintiff's division manager made repeated sexually explicit comments about his body and hers during ride-alongs, touched her thigh, issued a warning letter after she complained of harassment, and that her performance evaluations declined afterward. The court analyzed whether these facts created genuine issues of material fact on claims of hostile work environment, tangible employment actions, and retaliation, while also addressing defenses such as qualified privilege for any defamation claims.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

This case involved plaintiffs Berlyn, Inc., Montgomery Sentinel Publishing, and Kenneth Rossignol, who publish community newspapers, suing defendants including The Washington Post Company, Gazette Newspapers, and Baltimore Suburban Press Network for alleged violations of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Copyright Act, Maryland Antitrust Act, and related state claims including unfair competition, breach of contract, and tortious interference. The disputes centered on advertising placement networks, market competition in Prince George's County newspapers, and alleged exclusionary practices affecting local advertising accounts. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all remaining counts, finding insufficient evidence of a relevant market or market power, no concerted action or conspiracy under applicable doctrines like Copperweld, and failure to meet other required elements for antitrust and related claims. The plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief was denied as moot.

business & regulatory

This case involves an antitrust lawsuit by small newspaper publishers against larger competitors including The Washington Post and Gazette Newspapers, alleging unreasonable restraints on trade, conspiracy to monopolize, unfair competition, breach of contract, tortious interference, and a Clayton Act violation arising from advertising practices and an acquisition affecting Maryland county markets. The court ruled on the defendants' motion to exclude expert testimony from James B. Shaffer regarding relevant market definition for antitrust purposes, predatory pricing analysis, and estimated lost profits damages. The court granted the motion in part by excluding Shaffer's market definition opinions, finding he lacked sufficient qualifications, training, or knowledge in antitrust economics despite his newspaper business experience. It denied the motion in part by permitting limited testimony on predatory pricing and damages calculations.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved USAA Casualty Insurance seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured, Ruth Mummert, against claims brought by her former employers, Robert H. Law and Robert H. Law, P.A. Mummert had been accused of embezzling funds over several years through actions including conversion, intentional misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty, which were later amended to include negligence claims, resulting in a consent judgment. The court granted USAA's motion for summary judgment, holding that the policy provided coverage only for damages caused by an "occurrence," defined as an accident, and that Mummert's intentional conduct did not qualify. Under Maryland law, the insurer's obligations are determined by the underlying allegations, but recharacterizing clearly intentional acts as negligent does not create a duty to defend or indemnify when the facts show no accident occurred.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilitycriminal law

This was an employment discrimination case brought by an African-American, Nigerian-born plaintiff against his employer, the Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services, alleging that he was denied promotions and equal pay on the basis of race and national origin in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims. Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the court granted the motion, concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact and entering judgment for the defendant.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involves claims by the Secretary of Labor against Roma Malkani and ISN for multiple violations of ERISA fiduciary duties in connection with the ISN Employees’ Pension Plan. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants attempted to transfer more than $2.5 million in plan assets to ISN and directed a third-party administrator to forfeit accounts of former employees based on an incorrect reading of the plan’s cliff-vesting provisions. The court granted the plaintiff’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment and denied the defendants’ motion, holding that the attempted transfers violated ERISA § 406(a)(1)(D) and that the defendants breached their duties of loyalty and care under § 404 by seeking to reclaim contributions and misapplying forfeiture rules. The decision rested on the plan documents, undisputed facts showing no legitimate administrative expense claims, and the anti-inurement provisions of ERISA.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In United States v. Gary, the defendant moved for expungement of her criminal record following an acquittal, seeking to improve her employment prospects including the opportunity to become a police officer. The court denied the motion, holding that while federal district courts possess ancillary jurisdiction to expunge records, this authority is strictly limited to cases involving an unlawful arrest or conviction or to correct clerical errors. The court reasoned that an acquittal does not render the preceding arrest unlawful and that equitable considerations alone, such as enhancing job opportunities, do not provide a basis for expungement. It emphasized that any broader power to expunge valid records on equitable grounds must come from Congress rather than judicial expansion of jurisdiction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case arose from a traffic stop in which a diabetic plaintiff, driving erratically due to insulin shock without wearing a medical alert tag, was forcibly removed from his vehicle by sheriff's deputies using a broken window, pepper spray, baton strikes, and a police dog after failing to comply with orders. The plaintiff brought federal claims for excessive force and unreasonable seizure, plus pendent state-law claims. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the federal claims on qualified immunity grounds, holding that the officers' conduct was objectively reasonable from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene given the plaintiff's dangerous driving and non-compliance. The state claims were dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

civil rightsprocedurecriminal law

The case involved an NSA employee seeking a temporary restraining order to compel the immediate processing of his Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act requests for agency records, which he claimed were necessary to defend his security clearance in an upcoming administrative appeal. The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order. The decision was based on the balance of hardships test, which weighed the plaintiff's potential employment consequences against the government's interest in protecting highly classified information, finding that the latter prevailed. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate immediate irreparable injury, as the hearing materials were already provided, and any future harm could be addressed later.

federal powerprocedure

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court order holding that certain marital debts from a divorce judgment were non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15). The debts arose from a 1996 West Virginia divorce between Boyce Allen Brasington and Dyan Brasington and included responsibility for half of a joint bank obligation plus a $16,000 equitable distribution payment tied to mortgage and maintenance expenses. The bankruptcy court found the debtor failed to prove either inability to pay from disposable income or that discharge benefits would outweigh harm to the former spouse, who had primary child-care responsibilities, and the district court affirmed after reviewing factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court upheld the decision based on credibility determinations rejecting the debtor's financial claims and consideration of factors such as income, expenses, child support history, and detriment to the ex-spouse.

family law

This case involves plaintiffs who filed Title VII employment discrimination claims against Jotun Paints, Inc., which had previously been dismissed as untimely. On motions for reconsideration, the court vacated its February 12, 2002 orders and reopened the cases. The court determined that under Maryland law, the statute of limitations is tolled indefinitely upon the filing of a complaint, citing relevant state precedents. It also noted that the plaintiffs demonstrated a willingness to proceed and that any delay in service was not wholly unjustified, rendering the defendant's opposition unpersuasive.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved allegations that Legg Mason had, since 1992, made and distributed unauthorized copies of a copyrighted financial newsletter to which it held only one individual subscription, prompting claims under the Copyright Act as well as RICO, breach of contract, fraud, and unfair competition. The court granted the motion to dismiss the RICO claim, finding that the alleged conduct amounted to ordinary fraud against a single victim with no sufficient pattern of racketeering activity under Fourth Circuit precedent. It also dismissed the fraud claim as preempted by the Copyright Act because it lacked any qualitatively different element, but allowed the breach-of-express-contract and "hot news" unfair-competition claims to proceed on the ground that they involved extra elements not equivalent to the rights protected by copyright. The Copyright Act claim itself was uncontested at this stage and remained.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryproperty

This case involved two related Title VII employment discrimination suits filed in Maryland state court near the end of the 90-day period after the plaintiffs received right-to-sue notices from the EEOC. The plaintiffs filed complaints on June 4, 2001, but failed to serve the defendant within the 60 days required by state rules, allowing the summonses to expire; service was not effected until December 13, 2001, after the summonses were reissued. Following removal to federal court, the defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that the claims were time-barred. The court granted the motions to dismiss, reasoning that the 90-day Title VII filing period operates like a statute of limitations that is tolled only during the pendency of a valid summons, that state service rules governed prior to removal, and that the plaintiffs had made no showing of diligence to support equitable tolling after the summonses expired.

civil rightsprocedurelabor & employment

This case concerned a dispute over the proceeds of an ERISA-regulated life insurance policy issued through the decedent's employer, Bell Atlantic, and administered by MetLife. The decedent's ex-wife sought the benefits for their minor children under a separation and property settlement agreement that required naming the children as irrevocable beneficiaries, while the decedent had instead designated Beth R. Deaton as the beneficiary. The court granted summary judgment to Deaton, holding that the separation agreement did not qualify as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) under ERISA because it failed to clearly specify the plan to which it applied, the percentages or method of distribution to each child, and other statutory requirements. ERISA preempts state law, and only a valid QDRO can override the plan participant's beneficiary designation. The court therefore awarded the proceeds to the named beneficiary.

labor & employmentfamily lawfederal power

This admiralty case involves a claim by cargo owner Acciai Speciali Terni USA, Inc. against the carrier and charterer for damage to steel sheets shipped from Italy to Baltimore under a bill of lading. The plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that the Hague-Visby Rules (as enacted in Italy) set the liability limit rather than the U.S. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). The court denied the motion, holding that COGSA applies compulsorily to inbound shipments to U.S. ports under 46 U.S.C. App. § 1312, and that the bill of lading's General Paramount Clause and U.S. Trade clause did not demonstrate an intent to contractually adopt the higher Hague-Visby limits in place of COGSA. The decision rested on the statutory mandate of COGSA for U.S.-bound cargo and the absence of clear contractual language overriding it.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

TFWS, Inc., a liquor retailer, sued Maryland officials alleging that the state's statutory scheme for regulating liquor prices violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. After the Fourth Circuit found the scheme to be a per se antitrust violation not protected by state action immunity and remanded for consideration of the state's Twenty-first Amendment defense, the district court evaluated whether the regulations promoted temperance. The court determined that the scheme effectively advanced the state's interest in temperance, an interest protected by the Twenty-first Amendment, and that this interest outweighed the federal interest in promoting competition under the Sherman Act. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant.

business & regulatoryfederal power