In Dunbar v. Orbital Sciences Corp. Group Disability Plan, plaintiff Roscoe Dunbar sued his employer's disability plan and insurer Liberty Life under ERISA after his claims for short-term and long-term disability benefits were denied. Dunbar alleged total disability due to conditions including Hepatitis C, narcolepsy, and cognitive impairments that prevented him from performing his job as a scientist. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, granted the defendants' motion in part, and remanded the case to Liberty Life for further review of the claim, applying a modified abuse of discretion standard to the plan administrator's decision. The core reasoning was that the administrator failed to adequately consider all medical evidence, particularly reports on cognitive impairments, in denying the benefits.
In Bailey v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland, a Caucasian male police lieutenant over age 46 sued the county under Title VII and the ADEA, alleging he was denied a promotion to captain due to his race, sex, and age. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and that the county's selection process, which ranked candidates objectively and promoted the highest-scoring applicant after interviews, was based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons without evidence of pretext. The eligibility list was created using a scoring system that placed the plaintiff seventh, while the promoted candidate, an African-American female, ranked first, and no evidence showed improper consideration of race, sex, or age.
In Gregory v. Otac, Inc., a disabled plaintiff who uses a walker sued the current and former owners of a Hardee’s restaurant under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Maryland negligence law after he fell while descending a curb in the parking lot instead of using an available ramp from a handicapped space. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the three ADA counts, concluding that the restaurant had provided compliant accessible parking and a continuous path of travel via the ramp, and that the plaintiff had been aware of but deliberately bypassed the ramp both entering and leaving the premises. The court dismissed the state-law negligence claim without prejudice, declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction once the federal claims were resolved on summary judgment before trial.
The Nazelrods sued Garrett County Sanitary District, Inc. after water from municipal lines flooded their business properties, alleging inverse condemnation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (Count I), procedural and substantive due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Counts II and III), and several Maryland common-law claims including trespass and negligence (Counts IV-VII). The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the three federal counts, finding no evidence that the Sanitary District caused a compensable taking or violated due process rights, as leaks were either not from its lines or were promptly addressed without depriving plaintiffs of property or process. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and dismissed the remaining state-law counts without prejudice.
This case involved a dispute over a 1997 Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement in which Lehman Brothers sold a portfolio of commercial mortgages, including a $9 million loan secured by New Jersey industrial property with a history of environmental contamination, to First Union for securitization in a trust for which LaSalle Bank served as trustee. LaSalle sued Lehman for breach of contract, seeking specific performance and damages after discovering that Lehman had made false representations and warranties about the loan's environmental compliance and related documents. The court granted LaSalle's motion for summary judgment and denied Lehman's, holding that Lehman breached multiple warranties regarding the property's environmental status and failed to cure the breach or repurchase the loan as required by the agreement. The core reasoning focused on the plain language of the contract warranties, the inadequacy of prior environmental reports to disclose contamination risks, and Lehman's obligations to the trust and certificateholders, without addressing statute of limitations defenses on the facts presented.
This case involves an insurance coverage dispute in which Mutual Benefit Group sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its insureds, Wise M. Bolt Company and Stanley E. Bolt, against claims brought by homeowners for alleged faulty construction of a house. The Bolt parties moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the commercial general liability policy covered property damage caused by an occurrence under Maryland law, while Mutual Benefit cross-moved for summary judgment asserting exclusions applied. The court granted the Bolt parties' partial summary judgment motion, denied Mutual Benefit's motion, and ordered the insurer to provide a defense in the underlying state court action, reasoning that the duty to defend is triggered when any claims potentially fall within policy coverage for accidental property damage. It denied the motion to dismiss, stayed further proceedings on the duty to indemnify pending resolution of the state case, and deferred attorneys' fees issues.