Deborah K. Chasanow

This case is a bankruptcy appeal in which chapter 7 trustee Gary Rosen challenged the partial dismissal of his adversary complaint against David Dahan and related LLCs for allegedly helping debtor Minh Vu Hoang conceal post-petition real-estate proceeds through sham entities. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's June 2011 order, holding that claims under 11 U.S.C. § 549 to avoid unauthorized post-petition transfers were time-barred and that the complaint failed to state viable claims for turnover under § 542 or other avoidance counts because the defendants never held property of the estate. The court reasoned that the pleaded facts showed transfers occurred more than two years before suit and that the entities functioned merely as conduits without the defendants retaining estate assets.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns a dispute between the Ground Zero Museum Workshop, its founder Gary Suson, and former volunteer webmaster William Wilson, who resigned after a disagreement and used his credentials to remove his shopping cart service and related files from the museum's website, which plaintiffs alleged caused lost sales and damaged search rankings. Plaintiffs brought claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and various state-law torts including defamation, while Wilson filed a counterclaim. The court granted Wilson's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, granted leave to amend the counterclaim, and denied the plaintiffs' motions to strike, primarily because plaintiffs failed to produce evidence of unauthorized circumvention or other violations and because certain state-law claims were subject to preclusion or choice-of-law rules.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a former employee of the Prince George's County Board of Education who sued the Board and her union, alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under the Labor Management Relations Act by failing to pursue her grievances about pay and leave, that the Board violated the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law by not paying all wages due, and that both defendants discriminated against her on the basis of disability under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss. It held that the LMRA does not apply to state employees like the plaintiff, that she failed to exhaust administrative remedies for her discrimination claims (and they were also time-barred), and that her wage claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case is an employment discrimination action brought by the EEOC against CTI Global Solutions, a government contractor, alleging that the company unlawfully removed three pregnant employees from a long-term FBI records project due to lifting and climbing duties. The court granted in part and denied in part the EEOC's motion for partial summary judgment while denying the defendant's cross-motion. It determined that one employee's removal was based solely on her pregnancy in violation of federal law, with no valid defense, but found genuine factual disputes regarding accommodations for the other two employees, their job performance, and their efforts to mitigate damages through other work that required trial resolution.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this diversity case, plaintiff Peter Borlo sued Navy Federal Credit Union for negligence and damage to his credit after learning that his former business partner had obtained an unauthorized $30,000 loan in Borlo’s name. Borlo had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2008, and the loan-related facts were known to him before the petition was filed. The court granted Navy Federal’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), holding that Borlo lacked standing because any cause of action accrued before bankruptcy and therefore belonged to the bankruptcy estate rather than to Borlo personally. The decision rested on principles that property of the estate includes all legal and equitable interests the debtor holds at the commencement of the case, and that standing to pursue pre-petition claims passes to the trustee.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involves service technicians suing their employers, DirectSat USA and related companies, for allegedly failing to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and similar Maryland and District of Columbia state laws, claiming they were required to work over 40 hours per week without compensation and directed to underreport hours on time sheets. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that one plaintiff's claims were barred by a prior similar action under the first-to-file rule, that the FLSA claims were inadequately pled, that state claims were preempted, and that a Rule 23 class action could not proceed alongside an FLSA collective action. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding the first-to-file rule inapplicable after the prior case was decertified, determining the claims were sufficiently pled, rejecting preemption, and holding that the collective and class actions could be maintained together.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Tobey v. United States, the petitioner, who had been convicted of unlicensed dealing in firearms and sentenced to imprisonment followed by supervised release, was certified as a sexually dangerous person under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act shortly before his release date. This certification under 18 U.S.C. § 4248 stayed his release, and he remained in federal custody for years without a civil commitment hearing. Tobey filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 arguing that his three-year supervised release term had already expired during his post-certification detention. The court denied the petition, holding that a prisoner's detention following § 4248 certification delays the start of the supervised release period because, under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e), supervised release does not commence until the person is actually released from imprisonment.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

This case involves Washington Gas Light Company's efforts to construct a liquefied natural gas storage tank at its existing facility in Prince George's County, Maryland, after the county's zoning authorities denied the proposal following administrative hearings. The company sued the county council and county, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on grounds that federal law under the Natural Gas Act and Pipeline Safety Act, along with state law, preempts local zoning and safety regulations for the facility. Prior rulings established that the facility is intrastate rather than interstate, rendering certain express preemption claims inapplicable and requiring more specific allegations about preempted local provisions. The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, allowing some additional facts to support an intrastate preemption theory and a new dormant commerce clause claim while rejecting restatements of previously dismissed theories, and denied the defendants' summary judgment motion as moot.

business & regulatoryenvironmentfederal power

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court's order granting summary judgment to the parents of a Chapter 7 debtor in an adversary proceeding brought by the trustee and a creditor. The underlying dispute alleged that the debtor orchestrated a Ponzi scheme to misappropriate millions in invested funds through a network of LLCs and corporations he controlled, with claims against the parents for fraud, conversion, civil conspiracy, fraudulent conveyance, and alter ego liability to reach their assets. The district court affirmed in part and reversed in part the bankruptcy court's summary judgment ruling, dismissed the appeal from the denial of the parents' cross-motion, and remanded the case. The core reasoning addressed the sufficiency of evidence on transfers and veil-piercing for LLCs under Maryland law, distinguished remedies like turnover and injunctive relief from independent causes of action, and applied standards for finality in bankruptcy appeals under Rule 54(b).

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a challenge by Centro Tepeyac, a nonprofit pregnancy resource center, to a Montgomery County resolution requiring limited-service pregnancy centers without licensed medical professionals on staff to post signs in their waiting rooms stating that they lack such professionals and encouraging women to consult licensed health care providers. The plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments due to compelled speech. The court denied the defendants' motion to strike, denied in part and granted in part their motion to dismiss, and granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. The core reasoning was that the resolution compels content-based speech by dictating specific messages, which triggers strict scrutiny under the First Amendment rather than lesser scrutiny for commercial or professional speech, as the centers' activities involve fully protected expression intertwined with information about pregnancy options.

free speechcivil rights

In this copyright infringement case, Plaintiff Billco International, Inc. claimed ownership of copyrights in three-dimensional dolphin and tiger designs on souvenir shot glasses and accused Defendant Charles Products, Inc. of copying those designs for its own competing products. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that the works lacked substantial similarity. The court denied the motion, concluding that genuine factual disputes existed about the similarities and copyrightability of specific elements in the designs, based on the parties' conflicting descriptions, visual comparisons, and the need for jury resolution rather than a legal determination at this stage.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a Federal Tort Claims Act suit brought by Angele Chang-Williams after her husband and son were killed and she was injured in a 2002 home attack by U.S. Marine Sergeant Estabon Eugene, the estranged husband of her niece. The plaintiff alleged negligence by the Marine Corps in failing to protect her family despite Eugene's known violent history, including prior assaults and protective orders. The court dismissed the Department of the Navy, JAG, and Marine Corps as defendants because the FTCA permits suits only against the United States. It granted the parties' motions to supplement the record and construed the government's motion as one for summary judgment, granting it in part and denying it in part after analyzing choice-of-law rules, the duty to protect third parties, and exceptions to the general no-duty rule under Maryland and Virginia law.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case is a Title VII employment discrimination lawsuit brought by Dwight Thorn, an NIH employee, against Kathleen Sebelius in her capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Thorn alleged race and gender discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment arising from the denial of a promotion, a change in his work schedule, and other workplace actions. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims. It reasoned that Thorn had not exhausted administrative remedies for several claims, failed to identify qualifying adverse actions for the discrimination allegations, and did not show that any challenged conduct was retaliatory or sufficiently severe to support a hostile work environment claim.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved a consumer who purchased a used car from defendant Koons Automotive and alleged failures to disclose finance charges and the vehicle's prior rental use, as well as the dealership's failure to pay off a lien on her trade-in vehicle. Plaintiff Jones brought claims under the Truth in Lending Act, Maryland Consumer Protection Act, breach of warranty, deceit, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation. Defendant Koons moved to dismiss on grounds of personal jurisdiction, venue, and failure to state a claim, while Prestige Financial Services moved to intervene as a plaintiff due to its interest in the unpaid lien. The court granted the motion to intervene and granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, after analyzing jurisdictional standards under Fourth Circuit precedent, venue rules, and the sufficiency of the pleaded allegations.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In this civil rights case, plaintiff Melissa Dent sued the Montgomery County Police Department and several officers after they responded to a 911 call about a possible suicide attempt or overdose at her home in October 2006. The officers attempted to transport her to the hospital for evaluation despite her refusal, leading to a physical struggle in which she was handcuffed and tased; the parties disputed the details of her resistance and the officers' use of force. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, while denying plaintiff's motion to modify the scheduling order and extend time for discovery or response. The ruling on the scheduling motion rested on the lack of good cause or excusable neglect shown by plaintiff, who had prior opportunities for discovery. The partial summary judgment decision applied legal standards to the undisputed facts regarding the officers' actions and plaintiff's claims.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involves claims by construction workers against subcontractors XTEL Construction Group, LLC and its owner under the Fair Labor Standards Act and related Maryland wage laws, alleging failures to pay minimum wage, overtime, piece-rate earnings, and other compensation for work on a Verizon fiber-optic project. After a settlement with the primary contractor NTI resolved claims against it, the remaining defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the settlement barred further recovery. The court denied summary judgment, finding that the consent decree did not release claims against non-settling parties and that factual disputes remained. Separately, the court granted in part plaintiffs' motion to allow video testimony, permitting contemporaneous transmission for witnesses in Honduras due to travel burdens but denying it for others without sufficient justification.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved former drivers for Chariots for Hire alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Maryland Wage and Hour Law for unpaid wages, overtime compensation, and related benefits such as meal per diems and pre-trip inspection time, along with state claims for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. It allowed the wage claims under federal and state law to proceed while dismissing the fraudulent misrepresentation claim, reasoning that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead reliance on statements made to third parties rather than directly to them. The decision applied federal pleading standards under Twombly and Iqbal and considered exemptions under the motor carrier provisions of the FLSA.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case was a breach of contract dispute in which the National Labor College sued architect Hillier Group and its MEP sub-consultant Tolk over allegedly deficient designs and documents for a new campus building that caused permit delays, change orders, cost overruns from $13 million to $17.4 million, and a ten-month construction delay. The court granted Tolk's motion to dismiss in full, holding that the college was merely an incidental third-party beneficiary with no direct rights under Tolk's subcontract with Hillier. It granted Hillier's motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing certain indemnity and timeliness claims while allowing core breach and professional-negligence counts to proceed under the heightened standard of care in the AIA-based owner-architect agreement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a breach of contract dispute between Jaguar Land Rover North America, the exclusive U.S. distributor of Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles, and Manhattan Imported Cars, a Maryland dealership operating under dealer agreements. The dispute centered on JLRNA's suspension of incentive payments under the Business Builder Program due to missed facility renovation milestones and relocation of a Lincoln-Mercury operation, as well as unpaid warranty claims. The court granted JLRNA's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, finding that the agreements allowed suspension of incentives for missed deadlines but required further proceedings on certain warranty and contract interpretation issues under Maryland law. It also granted the defendant's unopposed motion to seal exhibits containing confidential financial data.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a former Radiology Technologist who sued her employer for sexual harassment under Title VII, alleging that her supervisor made unwelcome advances and conditioned her job on acquiescing to them after an internal investigation into rumors of a consensual relationship. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that any relationship was consensual, that the plaintiff failed to properly report harassment, and that it could not be held liable. The court denied the motion, finding genuine disputes of material fact as to whether the advances were unwelcome and whether a quid pro quo claim existed. It reasoned that the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense does not apply to quid pro quo claims and that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, could support employer liability.

labor & employmentcivil rights