J. Frederick Motz

The case involves Dennis Glynn, a former engineer at Impact Science & Technology, Inc. (IST), who sued IST and EDO Corporation alleging retaliation under the False Claims Act for raising concerns about the performance of counter-IED jammer systems, along with related claims, while IST brought counterclaims for breach of employment and asset purchase agreements, misappropriation of trade secrets, defamation, and other business torts. The district court denied Glynn's motion for summary judgment on protected activity and retaliation issues and granted IST's cross-motion for summary judgment on Glynn's FCA retaliation, post-termination retaliation, declaratory judgment, and Haddle claims. On the counterclaims, the court granted summary judgment to IST on breach of the employment agreement but to Glynn on several others including breach of the asset purchase agreement, fiduciary duty, conversion, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy, while denying summary judgment on misappropriation of trade secrets and violation of New Hampshire's consumer protection statute. As a result, only IST's counterclaims for misappropriation of trade secrets, defamation, and the consumer protection violation survived to proceed to trial, based on the court's assessment of the evidence regarding contractual duties, protected conduct, and potential misuse of proprietary information.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case arose from a 2007 shipment of steel pipes from China to Baltimore that allegedly suffered damage during storage by terminal operator Rukert, prompting Ferrostaal to sue multiple parties including Rukert for $350,000 in negligence damages under federal maritime jurisdiction. Rukert sought a declaratory judgment limiting any liability to $20,170.91 based on a clause in its warehouse receipt capping recovery at ten times the per-ton monthly storage rate. The court granted the motion, holding that the limitation was enforceable under Maryland law because Ferrostaal received actual notice of the terms, the clause was not ambiguous, and warehousemen may validly restrict liability when parties have equal bargaining power and the provision is not unconscionable.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case is a putative class action brought by former temporary employees of the Prince George's County Board of Education against the Board, a Board official, and their union (Local 2250), asserting state-law claims related to employment status and an arbitration decision plus federal constitutional claims. The Board and official removed the case to federal court, stating that the union consented, and plaintiffs moved to remand on the ground that the union had not separately documented its consent. The court denied remand, reasoning that the removal statutes require only actual consent (not a separate writing) and that one defendant's notice stating it had obtained the co-defendant's concurrence is sufficient under Fourth Circuit precedent, with Rule 11 providing adequate safeguards against misrepresentation. The court then granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, concluding that the claims were untimely, failed to state plausible federal claims, or were otherwise barred.

labor & employmentprocedurecivil rights

The case involves a dispute resolution petition filed by Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC, the current owner of a Maryland steel facility, against the EPA and Maryland Department of the Environment regarding obligations under a 1997 Consent Decree originally entered against Bethlehem Steel Corporation for RCRA, Clean Water Act, and related violations. The core issue was the impact of a 2003 Bankruptcy Sale Order on Severstal's liability for pre-sale hazardous waste releases and its duty to perform a Site Wide Investigation (SWI) including offshore media sampling. The court held that the Bankruptcy Sale Order limits Severstal's liability under the Consent Decree to post-April 23, 2003 releases only, but that the obligation to conduct the SWI remains a separate, assumed liability not extinguished by the sale. The court retained jurisdiction to address the SWI's scope after the parties submit a report within 45 days.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves environmental nonprofit organizations and nearby residents suing Severstal Sparrows Point LLC and ArcelorMittal USA Inc. for alleged violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Clean Water Act, and related Maryland laws at a former steel manufacturing facility on the Chesapeake Bay, seeking declaratory, injunctive, and penalty relief. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of jurisdiction and failure to state claims. The court granted the motions as to Counts I, III, IV, V, and VI, primarily because the plaintiffs' pre-suit notice letter failed to adequately identify specific permit violations or ongoing discharges as required by federal regulations, and because prior bankruptcy proceedings and a consent decree limited successor liability. The court denied the motions as to Counts II and VII, allowing those claims to proceed.

environmentprocedure

In Scott v. Nuvell Financial Services LLC, plaintiffs Randolph Scott and Gladys Gardner sued Nuvell Financial Services, Nuvell National Auto Finance, and GMAC, alleging five counts of statutory and contractual violations arising from the repossession and sale of their vehicles. The complaints claimed that the defendants misrepresented the sales as public auctions when they were actually private, thereby violating Maryland's Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, and related contract terms. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all counts after determining that the Tuesday auctions at Manheim, which were advertised in the Baltimore Sun, open to the public with a refundable deposit for non-dealers, and conducted regularly, qualified as public sales under the applicable law and contracts. The core reasoning focused on the uncontroverted facts that the auctions met the criteria for public sales, including public notice and accessibility, which defeated the foundational premise of the plaintiffs' claims.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved volunteer fire and rescue departments and their former administrative employees suing Montgomery County and officials for eliminating public funding for certain support positions, alleging retaliation for the departments' opposition to legislation authorizing an emergency medical services transport fee. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and damages under various federal and state statutory and constitutional provisions. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). It reasoned that the budget cuts were legislative actions immune from challenge based on alleged improper motives, that the funding decisions did not violate constitutional rights, and that claims such as abusive discharge failed because the county was not the plaintiffs' employer.

civil rightsfree speechlabor & employmentprocedure

In Boyd v. Bell, a former NFL player sued the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan under ERISA to challenge the denial of his request to reclassify his total and permanent disability benefits from Inactive to the higher-paying Football Degenerative category, based on claimed brain injuries from his playing career. The district court granted the Plan's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court held that the Retirement Board did not abuse its discretion in finding no material change in circumstances since the original award of benefits, that the Plan's interpretation of its terms was reasonable, and that any structural conflict of interest did not alter the outcome given other procedural safeguards.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case, part of a multidistrict litigation proceeding involving mutual fund market timing claims, concerned whether state-law securities claims brought by plaintiffs against Putnam and Evergreen defendants were precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA). After years of removal, remand, and appellate proceedings in Illinois state and federal courts, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled the action was a covered class action under SLUSA and directed dismissal with prejudice; the case was then transferred to the MDL court in Maryland. The district court granted the Evergreen defendants' motion to administratively close and terminate the action, holding that SLUSA authorized removal, plaintiffs had waived any timeliness objections to removal by participating in federal proceedings and consenting to partial judgments, and any proposed amendment to the complaint would be futile.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Ross v. Early, plaintiff Aaron Ross, an animal welfare activist, sued Baltimore police officer Wayne Early and city officials, alleging that a city protocol restricting the locations where demonstrators could protest Ringling Brothers Circus performances near the First Mariner Arena violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly, as well as Fourth Amendment protections. The protocol, adopted after 2003 protests, confined demonstrators to specific sidewalk areas on certain sides of the arena. The court denied both defendants' joint motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's counter-motion, finding unresolved factual issues about whether the protocol was a generally applicable time, place, and manner restriction or one targeted only at circus protesters, which would affect the applicable level of constitutional scrutiny. The decision turned on the need for further fact-finding before determining the protocol's constitutionality under relevant First Amendment standards.

free speechcivil rights

The case involved plaintiffs, a disabled individual who uses a wheelchair and a nonprofit organization, suing Abercrombie & Fitch and related companies under the Americans with Disabilities Act and analogous state laws, alleging that the design of the defendants' retail stores created access barriers such as stepped entrances, narrow aisles, and high counters. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that the individual plaintiff had standing for claims involving the specific stores she visited and that the organization had associational standing for certain stores where its members encountered barriers, but lacked standing for other claims due to insufficient allegations of injury or state-law prudential limitations. The reasoning centered on Article III standing requirements of injury in fact, likelihood of future harm, and redressability, applied to both federal and state claims.

civil rightsprocedure

T-Mobile Northeast LLC applied to the Frederick County Board of Appeals for a special exception permit to build a 150-foot stealth cell tower on agricultural-zoned land to address a gap in wireless coverage, submitting required documentation on site selection, alternatives, photo simulations, and balloon tests under the county zoning ordinance. After a public hearing where T-Mobile presented expert testimony on coverage needs, minimal visual impact, and lack of effects on property values or historic sites, the Board denied the application based on community concerns about rural character and views. T-Mobile sued under the Federal Communications Act and Maryland law seeking an injunction to compel approval. The court granted T-Mobile's motion for summary judgment, holding that the Board's denial was not in accordance with Maryland zoning law and lacked substantial evidence supporting its conclusions.

business & regulatorypropertyfederal power

This case was a securities fraud action under Rule 10b-5 brought by investors against Franklin Templeton defendants in multidistrict litigation over market timing in mutual funds, with plaintiffs claiming the company's prospectuses falsely stated it was controlling timing while it allegedly allowed non-arranged timing to continue. The court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion on the scienter element for the period from 1999 through 2004. The ruling turned on evidence that the defendants tracked timing activity, studied controls, implemented redemption fees starting in 2001, and received an SEC finding that they had generally tried in good faith to stop market timing, which did not meet the threshold of intentional misconduct or recklessness.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Jacobson v. Comcast Corp., cable technicians employed by third-party installation companies that contracted with Comcast sued Comcast for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, claiming that Comcast qualified as their joint employer due to its extensive quality controls, supervision, hiring input, and work assignment authority. The district court granted Comcast's motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that a company may contract for essential services with third-party employers while maintaining quality standards and monitoring without incurring FLSA joint-employer liability, provided the fees paid to the direct employers are sufficient to cover the required wages—an allegation the plaintiffs did not make. The opinion applied the Bonnette and Zheng factors and concluded the record did not establish the degree of control or common direction needed for joint employment under the statute or its regulations.

labor & employment

This case involves disputes over franchise agreements between The Cleaning Authority (TCA), a Maryland franchisor of residential cleaning businesses, and its former franchisees, the Neuberts and Aldriches, along with related parties like Vanhook. TCA alleged breach of contract, including early termination without cause and violations of non-compete and confidentiality provisions, as well as conversion of goodwill and misuse of proprietary customer information and systems after the franchisees ended their agreements in 2009 and continued similar operations. The court granted Vanhook's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient contacts with Maryland but denied the Neuberts' and Aldriches' motions to dismiss the contract and conversion claims, finding the allegations adequately stated and the non-compete clauses potentially enforceable under applicable state law. The decision rested on analysis of the franchise terms, choice-of-law provisions, and jurisdictional facts without resolving the merits.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned a breach of contract dispute between Jay Dee/Mole Joint Venture and the City of Baltimore over a public sewer line construction project governed by Contract 839R, including the City's counterclaims for breach, liquidated damages, and promissory estoppel. After completion of discovery, both sides moved for summary judgment on the claims and counterclaims involving M/WBE subcontractor participation rules, bid bond forfeiture, mobilization payments, and project deadlines. The court interpreted the contract provisions to mean that the MWBOO was not required to approve every substitution request from the contractor and rejected the City's sovereign immunity defense, noting that Maryland law does not recognize governmental immunity in contract actions against municipalities.

business & regulatorycivil rights

Ted Figueroa, a totally blind IRS employee with consistently excellent performance reviews, sued Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, claiming he was denied promotion to a GS-13 Lead IT Specialist position because of his disability and advocacy for visually impaired workers. The district court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Evidence showed that supervisor Arlene Rosh, who had a deteriorating relationship with Figueroa after he became assertive and requested accommodations, was principally responsible for the selection decision despite not being the formal decisionmaker. The court held that Rehabilitation Act claims, like those under Title VII and the ADEA, allow employer liability when a biased superior in the chain of authority is the actual or principal cause of the adverse action.

civil rightslabor & employment

Plaintiff Cedar Rihani filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking to invalidate a confidentiality, non-competition, and non-solicitation agreement signed as part of his employment with Team Express Distributing, LLC. The defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) for improper venue, citing a forum selection clause that set venue irrevocably in Howard County, Maryland. The court granted the motion, holding that the clause was mandatory and unambiguous, requiring suit in a court physically located in Howard County where no federal courthouse sits. The plaintiff did not contest the clause's enforceability, and the court followed precedents treating such clauses as precluding federal venue when they limit litigation to a specific county without a federal court.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is the remaining part of multidistrict antitrust litigation in which Novell sued Microsoft, alleging that Microsoft violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by taking anticompetitive actions against Novell's software applications (such as WordPerfect) in order to obtain or maintain a monopoly in the PC operating system market and by entering into agreements that disadvantaged those applications. The district court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment and held that Novell no longer owned the claims because it had transferred them to Caldera under the 1996 Asset Purchase Agreement covering DOS Products. The court reasoned that the claims, though based on harm to applications, were directly or indirectly associated with the operating systems market in which the DOS Products competed. The court further concluded that, if Novell had retained ownership, its Section 2 claim would have survived summary judgment but its Section 1 claim would not.

business & regulatoryprocedure

180s, Inc. sued Gordini U.S.A., Inc. for trade dress and patent infringement based on three patents covering ear warmers. The court conducted claim construction after oral argument, explaining that patent claims define the invention and must be interpreted from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art using intrinsic evidence like the specification and prosecution history, along with extrinsic evidence when helpful but not to contradict unambiguous intrinsic meaning. The opinion addresses preliminary limits on the number of terms to construe, gives unaddressed terms their plain meaning, and notes that distinctions between ornamental and functional features in the design patent may be made at this stage to guide later infringement analysis.

business & regulatoryprocedure