Catherine C. Blake

The case challenged Maryland's Firearm Safety Act of 2013, enacted after mass shootings, which prohibits possession, sale, and transfer of certain assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. Plaintiffs, including gun owners, dealers, and advocacy groups, argued the law violated the Second Amendment and other constitutional provisions, seeking declaratory judgment and summary judgment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland upheld the Act as constitutional, granting summary judgment to state defendants and denying the plaintiffs' cross-motion. The core reasoning was that the law substantially advances public safety by limiting access to firearms with greater capacity to injure, while imposing no significant burden on the core Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to keep arms for self-defense in the home. The court also rejected related claims of vagueness in the statute's definitions and enforcement.

gunscivil rights

The case involved a challenge by gun owners, dealers, and advocacy groups to Maryland's Firearm Safety Act of 2013, which prohibits the possession, sale, and transfer of certain assault weapons and large-capacity magazines following incidents like the Sandy Hook shooting. The plaintiffs argued that the law violated the Second Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment to the state defendants, upholding the Act as constitutional. The court reasoned that the law substantially advances the state's interest in public safety by limiting access to weapons with greater capacity to cause harm, without unduly burdening the core Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to defend their homes.

guns

The case involved the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild challenging the seizure of 23 ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins by U.S. Customs and Border Protection after their importation, in an effort to contest the legality of import restrictions on certain archaeological coins from Cyprus and China under the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA). The guild alleged that the restrictions and seizures violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, constitutional protections under the First and Fifth Amendments, and were ultra vires actions by the State Department and Customs. The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. It reasoned that the CPIA authorizes import restrictions on objects of archaeological interest first discovered within and subject to export control by the requesting state party, that the agencies' actions in designating restricted coins and enforcing the rules were consistent with statutory authority and not subject to the claimed procedural or constitutional defects, and that no basis existed for declaratory, injunctive, or mandamus relief.

immigrationbusiness & regulatorycivil rightsfederal power

This case involves a qui tam action under the False Claims Act filed by relator Barry Rostholder against Omnicare, Inc., where the government declined to intervene. The defendants moved to unseal the entire court docket, including the government's previously sealed motions for extensions of time to decide on intervention, to which the relator consented but the government opposed. The court granted the motion to unseal, reasoning that the False Claims Act does not explicitly address unsealing such motions but a presumption favors public access to court records, and after in camera review, the documents contained only routine investigative procedures without revealing confidential techniques or jeopardizing ongoing or future cases. The court balanced the defendants' interest in the documents for potential defenses against the government's confidentiality concerns and found no significant countervailing interest to maintain the seal.

procedure

The Equal Rights Center (ERC), a nonprofit focused on housing equality for people with disabilities, sued Equity Residential alleging that its multifamily properties were designed and built in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), making them inaccessible. Equity moved for partial summary judgment on the ground that the ERC lacked Article III standing. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that the ERC had standing to pursue its FHA claims based on its diversion of resources for testing and investigation but lacked standing under Title III because that statute's private right of action is limited to persons who are themselves subjected to discrimination. The decision turned on the distinct statutory language of each law and the facts developed in discovery about the ERC's activities.

civil rightsprocedure

In United States v. Fabian, Alan Fabian, who had pled guilty to mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and filing a false tax return under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate his conviction and sentence based on claims including ineffective assistance of counsel, breach of the plea agreement, prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, improper restitution and forfeiture orders, and actual innocence. The district court denied the motion without a hearing. The court reasoned that Fabian's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, that his ineffective assistance claims lacked merit because counsel's performance was not deficient and did not prejudice him, and that his other post-plea claims were either waived by the plea, procedurally defaulted, or failed on the merits given the terms of the plea agreement and applicable statutes.

criminal lawproceduretaxes

Plaintiff Kimberly Williams sued the Gyrus defendants and Olympus America, Inc. after a portion of a surgical forceps broke off and remained in her body following a hysterectomy performed in Virginia, asserting claims for negligence, breach of warranties, and strict liability. The court granted the motions to dismiss the strict liability counts and for summary judgment in favor of OAI on the remaining counts. Maryland's lex loci delicti rule required application of Virginia substantive law, under which strict products liability is not recognized. OAI could not be held liable because it had no corporate affiliation with the Gyrus defendants at the time of the surgery.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

The State of Maryland sued Universal Elections, Inc., Julius Henson, and Rhonda Russell for violating the TCPA by arranging over 112,000 anonymous prerecorded calls to Maryland voters on the 2010 Election Day that omitted required identifying information about the caller and sponsor. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the TCPA did not apply to their conduct, that they were not directly responsible for the calls, and that the statute violated the First Amendment as applied to political speech. The court denied the motion, holding that the complaint adequately alleged the defendants' involvement and failure to disclose caller information in violation of the TCPA, that the statute's disclosure rules are content-neutral and satisfy intermediate scrutiny, and that the allegations state a plausible claim even if a third-party vendor placed the calls.

electionsfree speech

This case involves a qui tam action under the False Claims Act brought by Captain Robert S. Conover, an officer in the Maryland Air National Guard serving as a dual-status technician, against twenty-seven current or former MDANG members. Conover alleged that the defendants submitted false claims for payment for Inactive Duty Training flights and Additional Flying Training Periods that they did not fully complete, in violation of federal guidelines under 32 U.S.C. § 502 and related Air National Guard instructions. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion, holding that the claims were barred by principles of intramilitary immunity derived from the Feres doctrine, which precludes suits by service members against other members for conduct incident to military service, given the federal status of the National Guard training at issue.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

CSS Antenna, a Maryland company, sued Amphenol-Tuchel Electronics (ATE), a German manufacturer with a Michigan office, for breach of contract and warranties after ATE's cable components allegedly failed in cellular sites. ATE moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, or alternatively to transfer the case to Michigan or dismiss under forum non conveniens. The court denied the motions, finding that ATE had sufficient contacts with Maryland through multiple visits by its employee, ongoing negotiations and purchase orders handled from its Michigan office with CSS in Maryland, and an Inventory and Supply Agreement, satisfying Maryland's long-arm statute and due process. Venue was proper in Maryland as the events occurred there and the plaintiff is located there, with no showing that Michigan would be substantially more convenient.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned the interpretation of Charles Austrian's 1955 will, which established trusts for his two children, Robert and Janet, with remainder interests to their issue or, if none, ultimately to four named charitable institutions including Sinai Hospital and Johns Hopkins entities. After both children died without surviving issue, the Estate of Janet Fisher sued PNC Bank and the charities seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to direct the trust corpus to charities named in Janet's own revocable trust. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the will's plain language required distribution to the named charities when no issue remained. The reasoning focused on the sequential clauses in Article 4(D), which prioritized the testator's issue and then the specified charities over any other beneficiaries, while rejecting arguments that the will created contingent interests favoring the Fisher Estate.

propertyfamily law

This case involves a dispute over repayment of a $2 million loan made by IMMDF to an Iraqi company owned by defendant Al Harmoosh. IMMDF sued Al Harmoosh in federal court for breach of a promissory note he signed as a personal guarantee after the company defaulted, and Al Harmoosh moved to dismiss arguing that the claim was subject to arbitration under a clause in the underlying loan agreement. The court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the note was integrated into the loan agreement as one of the loan documents and that Al Harmoosh was bound by the arbitration provision. The core reasoning applied federal arbitration policy and Maryland contract interpretation principles to treat Al Harmoosh as a party to the transaction based on the note's explicit reference to the loan agreement, the agreement's requirement for the note, and the merged structure of the documents.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves the Asbestos Workers Local 24 Pension Fund and its trustees suing NLG Insulation, Inc. under ERISA to recover withdrawal liability after determining that Gamble Insulation, Inc. (a predecessor entity) had withdrawn from the Fund in 2006 by ceasing operations without providing required written notice under an automatically renewing collective bargaining agreement. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, holding NLG liable for the assessed withdrawal liability of $24,165 plus interest, liquidated damages, fees, and costs. The core reasoning was that NLG and Gamble Insulation were under common control as a single employer based on shared ownership, operations, equipment, and customers, making NLG responsible for the predecessor's withdrawal from the multiemployer pension plan.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved the EEOC and employee Christopher Fultz suing Rite Aid under the ADA and Maryland anti-discrimination laws, alleging disability discrimination, harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, and failure to accommodate related to Fultz's epilepsy, including work restrictions after seizures, denial of a promotion, and alleged mistreatment. The court granted Rite Aid's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. It reasoned that Fultz's epilepsy, involving grand mal seizures and brain surgery, raised genuine issues as to whether it substantially limited major life activities under the ADA, that Maryland law explicitly covers epilepsy as a disability, and that post-2007 claims under state law were viable, while dismissing other portions of the claims.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Hauk v. LVNV Funding, LLC, plaintiffs Jason Hauk and Freddy Velazquez sued LVNV, a debt buyer, alleging violations of the FDCPA, Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, and Maryland Consumer Protection Act after LVNV filed state court collection actions against them without obtaining a required Maryland collection agency license. The plaintiffs sought damages and class certification based on these unlicensed lawsuits. The court denied LVNV's motion to dismiss, finding that the well-pleaded allegations sufficiently stated claims for relief under the statutes, including that the lack of a license meant LVNV attempted to enforce rights it did not possess, and rejecting arguments that the licensing requirement violated the dormant Commerce Clause or that damages were unavailable.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Na’imah Ferdinand-Davenport sued her former employer, The Children’s Guild, claiming pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Maryland state law, and Baltimore City code after her position was eliminated due to low enrollment and she was not hired for two available social worker roles, while a non-pregnant colleague received one of them with earlier notice and touring opportunities. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies (treated as a Rule 12(b)(1) issue) and failure to state a plausible claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding the Title VII allegations sufficient to support an inference of discriminatory treatment in the hiring process based on differences in timing and access provided to the plaintiff versus the comparator employee, while dismissing other counts for lack of a private right of action or related reasons.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a Filipino seaman who suffered severe injuries while working aboard a cargo ship in U.S. waters and filed suit in federal court against the vessel's owners, managers, and charterers, asserting claims for negligence under the Jones Act and general maritime law, unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure, and violations of the Seaman's Wage Act. The defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3), citing a mandatory arbitration clause and forum-selection provision in the plaintiff's POEA employment contract that required disputes to be resolved through arbitration in the Philippines under Philippine law. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the arbitration agreement was enforceable given the strong federal policy favoring arbitration, that nonsignatory defendants could invoke the clause under principles of estoppel, and that the Jones Act and Wage Act claims did not override the contractual obligation to arbitrate.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

This case is a consolidated class action securities lawsuit brought by investors against Constellation Energy Group, Inc., its officers and directors, and underwriters, alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for misrepresentations in registration statements, prospectuses, and other filings during the class period from January 30 to September 16, 2008. The claims centered on errors in reporting potential collateral obligations following credit rating downgrades and alleged failures to disclose risks from exposure to Lehman Brothers. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss in part and denied them in part, dismissing the claims under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act due to insufficient allegations of scienter, while allowing certain claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the 1933 Act to proceed based on the misstatements regarding downgrade collateral requirements.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Ward v. Acme Paper & Supply Co., Inc., plaintiff Amy Ward, the company's first female warehouse employee, sued her employer under Title VII alleging pregnancy discrimination after Acme placed her on unpaid leave rather than accommodating her physician-imposed 10-15 pound lifting restriction. Acme maintained a policy of accommodating only work-related injuries and argued Ward could not perform essential warehouse duties. The court denied Ward's summary judgment motion in full and granted Acme's motion in part, dismissing the hostile work environment claim because the alleged conduct was not severe or pervasive, while allowing the disparate treatment claim to proceed due to disputed facts over whether Acme consistently applied its accommodation policy to non-pregnant employees with similar restrictions.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case concerned a motion for preliminary injunction by Stephen Kolbe against enforcement of Baltimore County Zoning Regulation 450.4.14, which limits temporary signs including political campaign signs to eight square feet in residential zones; Kolbe sought to post a 32 square-foot sign supporting a Republican candidate for governor on his property. The court denied the motion after applying the Winter factors for preliminary relief. The regulation was deemed content-neutral because the size limit applied equally to all categories of temporary signs regardless of message, subjecting it to intermediate scrutiny. The county's asserted interests in traffic safety and aesthetics were recognized as substantial, the limit was found narrowly tailored to those interests, and alternative means of communication such as multiple smaller signs remained available, so Kolbe failed to show likelihood of success on the merits of his First Amendment claim.

free speech