Andre Maurice Davis

The case concerns a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by John Joseph Merzbacher, who was convicted in state court of child rape and related offenses and sentenced to multiple life terms. Merzbacher alleged ineffective assistance of counsel because his two trial attorneys failed to inform him of or fully discuss a pretrial plea offer under which the state would recommend and a judge would impose a ten-year sentence. The state post-conviction court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing, relying on one deceased attorney's reputation for dishonesty to discredit her testimony that she had not conveyed the offer and instead finding that Merzbacher had been fully advised and rejected it. The federal district court held that these state-court factual findings were unreasonable in light of the record evidence and that Merzbacher had shown deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, and therefore granted the writ ordering the state to restore the status quo ante so Merzbacher could decide whether to accept the original offer, contingent on a judge's willingness to impose the ten-year sentence.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involves a declaratory judgment action by National Union Fire Insurance Co. against its insured, Porter Hayden Co., seeking a ruling that it owes no defense or indemnity obligations under four comprehensive general liability policies for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. Porter Hayden had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and its confirmed reorganization plan created an Asbestos Bodily Injury Trust to process and pay such claims in place of direct lawsuits against the company. The court granted Porter Hayden's motion for partial summary judgment and denied National Union's cross-motion, holding that the policies' coverage for bodily injury caused by occurrences during the policy periods extends to costs of handling claims submitted to the Trust. The reasoning centered on the policy language obligating the insurer to defend suits seeking damages for covered injuries, the explicit provision that bankruptcy does not relieve the insurer of its obligations, and the conclusion that the insurer's refusal to participate waived any bar from the policies' no-action clauses.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved three real estate agents who brought claims including racial and religious discrimination against their employer. The court had previously granted summary judgment to defendants on all federal claims. The pending motion sought reconsideration of an order that had overruled plaintiffs' objections to two magistrate judge awards of attorney fees and costs to defendants arising from discovery disputes. The court granted the motion in part, ruling that the objections were timely under Rules 72(a), 6(d), and 5(b)(2)(E) due to electronic service, but otherwise denied it, adopting the magistrate judge's findings that plaintiffs lacked substantial justification for their discovery positions and that the fee awards were reasonable.

civil rightsprocedure

In Proa v. NRT Mid Atlantic, Inc., three licensed real estate agents affiliated with a Maryland brokerage sued the brokerage companies, a former branch manager, and a regional vice president, alleging racial and religious discrimination that caused them pecuniary and non-pecuniary harms, along with related state-law claims. The plaintiffs asserted they were employees rather than independent contractors and claimed the branch manager systematically undermined non-Caucasian and non-Christian agents while the supervisor tolerated the conduct. After discovery, the court granted the defendants' renewed motions for summary judgment on the federal claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, finding that the plaintiffs could not establish prima facie cases of discrimination or retaliation due to insufficient evidence of protected activity, adverse actions, or pretext. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law breach-of-contract claims and dismissed them without prejudice. The opinion notes that the contractual arrangements treated the agents as independent contractors and that Maryland regulations required certain supervisory oversight by the brokerage.

civil rightslabor & employmentreligious liberty

This case involved a consolidated patent infringement action in which Leviton Manufacturing Co. sued for infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 6,864,766 covering a ground fault circuit interrupter, while Shanghai Meihao Electric sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, or unenforceability. After contentious discovery, Leviton moved to dismiss its claims voluntarily with prejudice, which the court granted while preserving Meihao's ability to seek fees and costs. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, overruled Leviton's objections, and awarded Meihao $726,579.15 in attorneys' fees plus $84,080.20 in costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The core reasoning was that Meihao was the prevailing party due to the with-prejudice dismissal, the case qualified as exceptional because of Leviton's inequitable conduct before the PTO and vexatious litigation tactics, and fees were necessary to avoid gross injustice.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is an employment discrimination lawsuit filed in 2005 by real estate agents against their employer. Plaintiffs moved to vacate the appointment of Magistrate Judge Gauvey to handle discovery and to set aside her discovery rulings, arguing that the referral process was improper because it was reassigned by the clerk's office rather than directly by the district judge, and that her additional role in conducting mediation created an appearance of bias. The court denied the motion, ruling that district judges may make general referrals to magistrate judges that are then randomly assigned, making any reassignment a curable procedural matter rather than a jurisdictional defect. The court further held that a magistrate judge's dual role in managing discovery and facilitating settlement does not violate legal standards or create disqualifying bias, particularly where no prejudice was shown and objections were raised only after unfavorable rulings.

procedurelabor & employment

In Perez v. Mountaire Farms, Inc., current and former employees at a chicken processing plant brought a class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Delaware law seeking compensation for time spent donning and doffing personal protective equipment, walking to workstations, sanitizing gear, and waiting before and after shifts as well as during meal breaks. After a bench trial, the court found the defendants liable, concluding that these activities were compensable because they were integral and indispensable to the principal work, required by USDA and OSHA regulations, and not de minimis, with the continuous workday rule applying to include walking and waiting time. The court reasoned that the employer failed to maintain records of the actual time involved, allowing damages to be awarded based on a reasonable inference from the employees' evidence under established FLSA precedent. The parties were directed to address further proceedings on damages and related issues.

labor & employment

The case involved a pro se plaintiff's claims against a retail store for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, false imprisonment, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, stemming from a 2005 shopping incident in which store staff accused her of theft, questioned her identification and credit card, delayed her purchase, and later overcharged her, leading to involvement by mall security. The court addressed the defendant's motion for summary judgment along with related procedural motions after a hearing and review of the facts viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. It granted the summary judgment motion in part and denied it in part, while also granting in part motions to compel discovery and to amend the answer, and permitting additional discovery through May 2009 with supplemental summary judgment motions due by June 2009. The court reasoned that certain claims, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress, failed as a matter of law because the store's conduct did not meet the high threshold of being extreme and outrageous under Maryland precedent, but other issues warranted further factual development.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved nonprofit organizations suing Archstone, a real estate developer, and other defendants including architect Niles Bolton for alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act at over 100 multi-family properties nationwide, claiming the designs and construction failed to ensure accessibility for disabled persons. After Archstone settled with the plaintiffs via consent decrees requiring payments and retrofits, it filed a cross-claim against Niles Bolton seeking contractual and implied indemnity, contribution, breach of contract damages, and negligence recovery for costs tied to 15 properties Niles Bolton designed. The court denied Archstone's motion to amend its cross-claim to add contribution and granted Niles Bolton's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the cross-claim with prejudice. The core reasoning was that federal law under the FHA and ADA imposes non-delegable duties on parties like Archstone, barring them from shifting liability or costs via state-law indemnity, contribution, or contractual claims to others, as Congress did not provide for such remedies and intended to prevent contracting around compliance obligations.

civil rightsfederal power

This case involves current and former employees at a Delaware poultry processing plant who sued their employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and related state law, seeking compensation for time spent donning and doffing personal protective equipment (PPE) required by regulations and company policy, as well as for related walking and sanitizing activities. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to proceed as a collective action under FLSA § 216(b), finding that the remaining opt-in plaintiffs were similarly situated. It denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment without prejudice, determining that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the donning and doffing activities were integral and indispensable to the employees' principal work under the Alvarez test, including disputes over the necessity of the lab coat and the practicality of employees taking PPE home.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The Association of Maryland Pilots filed a federal complaint under the Limitation Act seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability after William Dize brought a parallel Jones Act personal injury suit in state court alleging negligence in providing inadequate safety equipment for sandblasting work. Dize moved to stay the federal proceeding and dissolve the injunction against his state action. The court held that a single-claimant Jones Act plaintiff need only stipulate to litigating limitation of liability in federal court and need not stipulate to litigating exoneration there. The core reasoning was that this approach sufficiently protects the shipowner's right to limit liability under the Act while allowing the underlying claim to proceed in the claimant's chosen forum.

procedurelabor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involved a § 1983 claim by plaintiff Charles Richter against Deputy Sheriff James Beatty, alleging First Amendment retaliation when Beatty issued violation notices for a cracked windshield and an unattended vehicle, then had Richter's car towed, after Richter parked it displaying swastikas and anti-Pipkin political messages. Richter also raised due process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment and state-law claims. After discovery, the court addressed Beatty's motion for summary judgment, viewing the facts favorably to the plaintiff. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, concluding that the state-law claims failed on the merits and with immunity, while the federal claims turned on whether the officer's actions violated clearly established law regarding retaliation for protected speech.

free speechcivil rights

This case arose from a traffic stop on I-83 in Baltimore where plaintiff Rosemary Munyiri was arrested at gunpoint by Officer Haduch for minor traffic offenses, transported to the Central Booking and Intake Facility, and subjected to strip and visual body cavity searches before release on bail; all charges were later dropped when the officer failed to appear at trial. Munyiri sued multiple state and city defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment violations. The court denied the motions to dismiss filed by Secretary Maynard and Warden Williams in their individual capacities, finding the complaint plausibly alleged their supervisory liability for a policy of routine strip searches of all arrestees regardless of circumstances, but granted the remaining motions and dismissed all other claims with prejudice, including those against the arresting officer, police department, and other officials on grounds of immunity, lack of plausible claims, or failure to state a constitutional violation.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This diversity case stems from a failed bid by SecTek (with Stronghold and Secureone as subcontractors) on a U.S. Army security services contract, which the Army terminated after discovering underpricing errors; the subcontractors then sued SecTek for breach of their subcontracts. SecTek impleaded FMS, the financial modeling firm that prepared the bid pricing, alleging programming errors by FMS caused the underpricing and resulting terminations. The court dismissed SecTek's amended third-party complaint without prejudice, holding that the forum selection clause in the SecTek-FMS contract—which designated Virginia state or federal courts—applied to the claims and required litigation there rather than in Maryland.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Dr. Michael S. Rudman petitioned for review of a five-year exclusion from federal health care programs ordered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(a)(2), which mandates exclusion for convictions relating to patient abuse in health care delivery. The district court granted the Secretary's motion for summary judgment and affirmed the order. It held that Rudman's Alford guilty plea to second-degree assault on patients, followed by probation before judgment under Maryland law, constituted a conviction under the statute's definitions in § 1320a-7(i)(3) and (i)(4). The court also determined that the offense was connected to patient abuse during medical treatment, as shown by the plea record and agency precedent, and that the five-year minimum term was required by statute.

healthcarecriminal law

The case involves plaintiff Edward Jackson, a former Baltimore City Police Department colonel, who sued former Commissioner Kevin Clark and Deputy Commissioner Kenneth Blackwell after being assigned to handle human resources matters related to the improper rehiring and dual payroll of officer Ragina Averella. Jackson alleged that Clark and Blackwell directed him to investigate irregularities they had created, then initiated an Internal Affairs Division probe against him, demoted him, placed false information in his personnel file, and disseminated details to the media to shift blame and cover their own actions, resulting in claims including due process violations, wrongful discharge, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, dismissing the IIED claim because the alleged conduct was not extreme and outrageous under Maryland law and Jackson did not demonstrate a severe, disabling emotional response. Other claims, such as those based on federal and state due process and public policy violations, survived for further proceedings. The decision applied standards for motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and Maryland tort precedents.

civil rightslabor & employmenttorts & liability

This case concerns whether Baltimore County police officers, including School Resource Officers assigned to county schools, are entitled to overtime pay under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act for working after-hours security at school events such as dances and athletic contests. The officers and their union sued the County, claiming the work qualifies for FLSA overtime rates when combined with regular shifts, while the County argued the officers are either exempt administrative employees or engaged in secondary employment by the School Board under the special detail exemption. The court denied both parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, permitted the County to amend its answer to assert the previously omitted affirmative defenses, and concluded that material factual disputes exist regarding the applicability of the exemptions and whether the County and School Board act as joint employers for the after-hours assignments.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this case, Stephen Schafer, a white male employee of the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, sued under Title VII alleging that the agency failed to promote him to Medical Care Program Manager III due to racial discrimination favoring an African-American female candidate. After discovery, the district court considered the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, finding that Schafer lacked probative direct evidence of discrimination and that the agency had articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for selecting the other candidate based on her broader experience, interview performance, and writing sample. Schafer failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact showing those reasons were pretextual.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involves an interpleader action filed in Maryland state court by the County Commissioners of Worcester County regarding competing ownership claims to 23 duck decoys valued at about $16,650, which the sheriff had seized during a theft investigation but returned without charges; the claimants are a Delaware citizen and a Maryland citizen. Defendant Carroll removed the case to federal district court, arguing that the federal statutory interpleader provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1335, provided a basis for jurisdiction and removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The court decided to remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It reasoned that removal of a state interpleader action requires complete diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which is absent here, and that the minimal diversity allowed in original § 1335 actions does not permit removal; removal statutes must be strictly construed with doubts resolved against removal.

procedureproperty

In Nero v. Baltimore County, plaintiff Brian Nero sued two Baltimore County police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they violated his Fourth Amendment rights by entering his home without consent, detaining him at gunpoint in an attic, using a Taser, and facilitating his involuntary psychiatric commitment following a 911 call about a violent domestic argument. The court granted the officers' motion for summary judgment. It found no genuine dispute of material fact on either prong of the qualified immunity analysis: the officers' actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment because they responded to reports of potential violence and a gun, entered amid exigent circumstances, and used reasonable force and procedures; even if a violation had occurred, the rights at issue were not clearly established such that a reasonable officer would have known the conduct was unlawful.

civil rightscriminal law