Paul William Grimm

In Lopez v. XTEL Construction Group, LLC, plaintiffs moved to enforce an oral settlement agreement reached during February 2011 conference calls with the magistrate judge, under which defendants would pay $10,000 in installments to resolve the claims, with default judgment as a consequence for nonpayment. The court first addressed whether the magistrate judge should recuse under 28 U.S.C. § 455 due to participation in the settlement discussions, concluding that no disqualification was required because all knowledge stemmed from judicial proceedings without any extrajudicial source of bias. The court granted the motion, holding that the parties formed a complete, enforceable oral agreement with mutual assent on February 17, 2011, as confirmed by counsel's affidavit, contemporaneous notes, and the court's own records canceling the trial.

procedure

This case involves a discovery dispute in Mezu v. Morgan State University, where the plaintiff sought production of confidential personnel and FMLA-related documents from the defendant university. The court had previously ordered that the documents could be inspected at defense counsel's office, but the parties disagreed on the reasonable cost for copying and shipping them to the plaintiff's counsel. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to compel production at a lower cost, ruling that the defendant's reduced rate of $0.13 per page totaling $730.08 was reasonable, as it accounted for confidentiality requirements under Maryland law, and there was no evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim of inability to afford it. The plaintiff must pay this amount plus shipping if she wishes to obtain the copies.

procedurelabor & employment

This case concerns a discovery dispute in which plaintiff Patrick Richardson sought production of his ex-wife Sherri Richardson's file from defendant SARC, a sexual assault and spouse abuse resource center, and related individual defendants. Defendants asserted psychotherapist-patient privilege for most of the documents and attorney-client privilege for a subset, submitting the file for in camera review. The court held that the psychotherapist-patient privilege protects confidential communications and treatment notes even when provided by unlicensed counselors under the supervision of licensed professionals, that the attorney-client privilege applies to the relevant pages, and that neither privilege was waived by limited disclosures or by putting mental condition at issue. The court ordered production only of the non-privileged pages that were responsive to the requests.

procedure

In Kennedy v. Villa St. Catherine's, Inc., a former geriatric nursing assistant at a religious nursing center sued her employer under Title VII, alleging religious harassment, retaliatory discharge, and discriminatory discharge after her supervisor commented on her religious attire (long skirts and head covering as a member of the Church of the Brethren) and she was later terminated. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Title VII's religious organization exemption under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a) barred the claims. The plaintiff conceded the exemption applied to the discriminatory discharge count but contended it did not extend to harassment or retaliation. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, analyzing the exemption's scope through the statute's text, legislative history from 1964 and 1972 amendments, and precedents to determine its application to the various claims.

labor & employmentreligious libertycivil rights

In United States v. Moradi, the defendant was charged by superseding misdemeanor information with simple assault on an aircraft under 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(5) and 49 U.S.C. §§ 46506(1) and 46501, after an incident during a flight. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing lack of federal jurisdiction because the plane was in state airspace (not 'out of the jurisdiction of any particular State' as required for special maritime and territorial jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 7(5)). The court denied the motion, convicted the defendant of simple assault following a bench trial, and held that Congress created a distinct 'special aircraft jurisdiction' that permits federal prosecution of such offenses regardless of whether the aircraft is over state territory. This separate jurisdictional basis, enacted in title 49, does not incorporate the geographic limitations of 18 U.S.C. § 7.

criminal lawfederal power

This case arose from a prior commercial loan default action that the parties settled in 2007 with an agreement requiring defendants to pay Corsair $5 million in installments. After defendants missed payments, the parties amended the agreement in 2008 to extend deadlines, add interim payments, and grant Corsair a security interest in a patent held by defendant John Hildreth as collateral, with conditions on using the patent for other financing. When defendants again failed to pay or provide required lender commitment documents, Corsair sued for breach and sought to enforce the security interest. The court granted summary judgment in part to Corsair on liability for the payment default and enforceability of the patent security interest under Maryland's Article 9, while denying it in part on the full amount of damages sought.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved a correctional officer employed by Baltimore County who alleged that the county and his supervisors interfered with his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act by imposing restrictions on his intermittent leave to care for his son's asthma and food allergies, refusing to substitute other accrued leave, and disciplining him for FMLA-related absences; he also claimed retaliation through denial of promotions and a violation of his First Amendment rights stemming from prior complaints to the Department of Labor about FMLA compliance. The plaintiff sought summary judgment on his FMLA interference claims, while the defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted the defendants' motion in full on the FMLA claims against the individual supervisors, granted it in part and denied it in part against the county, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion, based on findings that the county had properly coded FMLA leave, that some claims were time-barred, and that the plaintiff had not shown actionable interference or protected speech on the remaining issues.

labor & employmentfree speechcivil rights

This case involved a traffic accident at an intersection between a county ambulance and a motorcycle operated by Gene Sergent under a Virginia learner's permit. Plaintiffs sued Anne Arundel County for negligence, and the defendant raised contributory negligence based on Sergent's lack of a license and supervision as required by statute. The jury found the county employee not negligent and did not reach the contributory negligence issue. Plaintiffs moved for a new trial, arguing that the court's evidentiary ruling and jury instruction on the Virginia statute were prejudicial and incorrect. The court denied the motion, holding that any such error was harmless because the jury's verdict turned solely on the absence of negligence by the county driver and was unaffected by the learner's permit evidence.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In United States v. Bryant, the defendant, charged with conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, moved to reconsider his pretrial detention order after a co-defendant provided an affidavit stating that the defendant was not involved in the alleged conspiracy. The court held a hearing where the government asserted, based on evidence it could not disclose publicly, that the affidavit was fabricated to obstruct justice. The court reviewed the government's supporting materials ex parte and in camera, found them reliable and consistent with prior findings, and determined that the affidavit was indeed fabricated and unauthenticated. The court denied the motion to reconsider, concluding that the original grounds for detention—a risk of nonappearance and danger to the community—remained supported by clear and convincing evidence under 18 U.S.C. § 3142, and that the ex parte review did not violate due process given the circumstances and opportunities provided to the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Marc Goodman’s breach of contract claim against defendant Praxair Services, Inc. (successor to Tracer Research Corporation), alleging he was owed a $50,000 success fee for helping obtain EPA exemptions for Tracer’s leak detection products. Goodman moved for spoliation sanctions, claiming Tracer destroyed or failed to preserve relevant emails, documents, and computers after litigation should have been anticipated. The court found the motion timely, that the duty to preserve arose on January 5, 2001, and applied to key employees like CEO Shannan Marty; it held that Tracer was negligent in failing to issue a litigation hold and willful in destroying Marty’s laptop and deleting emails, but did not act in bad faith overall, was not required to preserve third-party materials or search backup tapes, and caused no prejudice warranting summary judgment. As a result, the court denied Goodman’s requests for summary judgment or fact-specific adverse instructions but granted a general adverse jury instruction and permitted recovery of certain costs.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Williams v. Long, plaintiffs brought a collective action under the FLSA (and related state wage laws) against the owner of Charm City Cupcakes, alleging failure to pay minimum wage and overtime for work performed in 2007. After the defendant's counterclaims were dismissed for lack of supplemental jurisdiction, the plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), supported by exhibits including case search results and another employee's complaint showing similar unpaid wage claims. The court applied the lenient standard for conditional certification based on the pleadings and affidavits, determined that at least one key exhibit was properly authenticated as a public record, and granted the motion, finding sufficient evidence that other employees were similarly situated.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this declaratory judgment action, insurance companies CNA sued their insured Under Armour seeking a ruling that they had no duty to defend or indemnify it in a separate trademark infringement lawsuit brought by other companies. The immediate dispute concerned Under Armour's motion to use a PDF of claims notes, which contained attorney-client communications and work product from CNA's counsel, that CNA had erroneously posted on a website accessible to Under Armour's insurance broker. The court assumed without deciding that the notes were privileged and protected but ruled that any privilege or protection had been waived. The core reasoning was that CNA failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the disclosure, authorized the broker's access under a terms of service agreement, and the broker then shared the information with Under Armour.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned Juanita Waters' claims for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, which an ALJ denied after finding she had severe osteoarthritis but retained the capacity to perform her past work as a sanitation agent and other jobs, with the Appeals Council denying review after incorporating additional medical records into the record. The court first denied the Commissioner's motions to consolidate the case with another and for en banc consideration, finding the matters factually and procedurally distinct. On the merits, the court applied the standard from Wilkins v. Secretary to review the record as a whole, including new evidence, and clarified that remand is not automatically required when the Appeals Council does not explain its evaluation of new evidence unless that evidence is material. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for remand and reversed the Commissioner's decision because the ALJ failed to consider all of Waters' alleged impairments at step two of the sequential evaluation, an error that affected the analysis at later steps.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure

This case concerns Ms. Barton's application for Disability Insurance Benefits, initially denied by the Commissioner and upheld after two hearings before an ALJ who found she retained the residual functional capacity for simple, unskilled light work despite severe impairments including colitis, diabetes, hypertension, depressive disorder, and psychotic disorder. The ALJ concluded she could not perform past relevant work but that other jobs existed in significant numbers in the economy. The court denied the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff's alternative motion for remand, determining that the ALJ's RFC assessment did not adequately incorporate moderate limitations in social functioning and other mental abilities identified in the record, failed to properly evaluate new medical evidence from the treating physician accepted by the Appeals Council, and did not sufficiently address or explain consideration of certain state agency medical opinions as required by applicable Social Security rulings.

healthcareprocedure

This interpleader case involved competing claims to settlement funds owed by Mecco, Inc. to a sheet metal subcontractor operating as MetalMax for HVAC work on commercial projects. MetalMax was an informal name used by CAC Balancing, Inc., owned by Tony Clarkson, and the remaining claimants were Colombo Bank, which held a perfected security interest in CAC's accounts receivable under UCC Article 9, and the IRS, which held tax liens against CAC and Clarkson individually. The court ruled that Colombo Bank was entitled to the full amount of the funds. It reasoned that MetalMax and CAC were the same entity under state law, making the receivables subject to the bank's security interest, which attached and had priority over the later-filed federal tax liens, and that the settlement proceeds were sufficiently identified as payment for those receivables.

business & regulatorytaxesproperty