Angela W. Russell

Sasha Grandison (Of Counsel-Baltimore), Angela Russell (Partner-Baltimore), and Maya Dolby (Associate-Baltimore) obtained a favorable defense verdict on damages for a ready-mix concrete supplier client following a three-week trial in Baltimore City Circuit Court, Maryland. The plaintiff in this construction litigation, a developer and contractor, alleged that our client caused damage to the garage of a historic building undergoing renovations, seeking $2,300,000 in damages for demolition and reconstruction of the garage, financing costs, interest, lost rental income, and budget variance damages. Liability in the matter was conceded. The jury deliberated for 20 minutes before rendering a verdict of $275,500, a figure far below the last offer made to the plaintiff and a fraction of the plaintiff’s last demand. The client was extremely pleased with the outcome. The Baltimore team is grateful to paralegal Amanda Simpson and secretary Autumn Skinner for their exceptional, supportive efforts before and during the trial. 

Angela W. Russell (Partner-Baltimore) and Ellen E. Chang (Associate-Baltimore) scored a dismissal with prejudice, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, for an Annapolis, Maryland hotel against which plaintiffs claimed allegations of § 1981 racial discrimination. Plaintiffs charged hotel staff and management with racial animus in their communications to plaintiffs and handling of plaintiffs during their patronage of the hotel. In addition to racial discrimination, the Amended Complaint alleged numerous state law claims, including negligence, defamation, and conversion. Ellen composed the Motion to Dismiss and Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition, highlighting the bare legal conclusions of the Amended Complaint and plaintiffs’ bungled attempt to seek the Court’s determination of the merits of the case improperly at the pleading stage. In a memorandum opinion, the United States District Court detailed plaintiffs’ failure to allege direct evidence of racial discrimination and plaintiffs’ raising of little more than vague, conclusory allegations of race-based treatment. Accordingly, the U.S. District Court granted defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim, dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs’ § 1981 claims and directing the Clerk to close the case. Declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, the U.S. District Court dismissed the state law claims without prejudice.

​Angela W. Russell (Partner-Baltimore, MD) and Ellen E. Chang (Associate-Baltimore, MD) represented a city Housing Authority and its Executive Director in a multi-party dispute pending in the U.S. District Court, District of Maryland. The gravamens of the Complaint were allegations of federal and state constitutional violations in connection with a contract between a private developer and the City for the development of a neighborhood in the city limits. Several residents of the neighborhood charged the Housing Authority and the City, the private developer, and the City’s former mayor with engaging in a campaign to relinquish hundreds of residential properties to the developer by eminent domain, with no public benefit, and indefinitely encumbering the properties through restrictions to free market real estate and strategies to bypass zoning code regulations. Ellen served as the lead on the Motion to Dismiss for the plaintiffs’ failure to state a claim and argued the Motion asserting that the Housing Authority and its Executive Director are not subject to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims because the Housing Authority is a not State actor, government defendant, or entity that acted under color of law, and even if it were subject to a § 1983 claim, the factual insufficiencies of the Complaint failed to establish the plaintiffs’ entitlements to relief. In a memorandum opinion that addresses the Motion to Dismiss as well as the dispositive motions of the other defendants, the court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to state a claim as to each cause of action, which included violations of the Takings Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and Due Process Clause as well as nuisance and unjust enrichment. The court granted our Motion to Dismiss entirely, granted or granted/denied in part as moot the other defendants’ motions, and dismissed the Complaint.

Baltimore, Maryland, partners Angela Russell and Emily Belanger obtained a defense verdict in Prince George’s County Circuit Court in Maryland. The plaintiffs filed suit against the firm’s client, a major hotel and casino, after allegedly being assaulted, battered, and falsely imprisoned by security guards. The plaintiffs also alleged negligent training and supervision, gross negligence, and punitive damages. The court dismissed the gross negligence, negligent training and supervision, and punitive damages claims on a Motion for Judgment that was argued at the close of the defense case. The jury deliberated on the intentional tort claims. The plaintiffs relied most heavily on a 30-minute video where the plaintiffs are seen being “roughed up” by three security guards after one of the plaintiffs refused to cooperate with an investigation. The encounter was initiated because the plaintiffs were suspected of defrauding the casino. The jury deliberated for 30 minutes before returning a defense verdict. 

Angela Russell (Partner-Baltimore, MD) and Nakea Barksdale (Associate-Baltimore, MD) achieved a significant defense victory for a general construction contractor in a complex legal dispute that began in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment and negligence related to a home remodeling agreement, which included a roof installation, attic repair and other renovations. Angela and Nakea successfully filed a motion to dismiss the court case and a motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration provision in the agreement. Once in arbitration, the defense team effectively demonstrated through expert and fact testimony that the contractor had fulfilled all contractual obligations and adhered to industry standards. The arbitrator ultimately ruled in favor of the contractor, dismissing all of the plaintiff’s claims. 

Angela Russell (Partner-Baltimore) and Pernell Choren (Associate-Washington, DC) obtained dismissal in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for a multinational food and beverage company accused of negligence. Angela and Perry filed a motion to dismiss, arguing dismissal was warranted because the claim contained insufficient pleadings and that pro se litigants like the plaintiff are not entitled to special treatment in the District of Columbia. Angela and Perry demonstrated that the plaintiff failed to effectuate the service of process on either our client or its insurer. In a four-page written decision, the Court found Angela and Perry’s arguments persuasive and ruled that the plaintiff failed to identify any element of any legally viable claim. The Court granted Wilson Elser’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint and the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).

Emily Belanger (Associate-Baltimore, MD) and Angela Russell (Partner-Baltimore, MD) received a defense verdict following a recent bench trial in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. This case has been pending for four years and was appealed to the Appellate Court after the lower court granted Emily and Angela’s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Court reversed in part and remanded the case for trial. The plaintiff claimed breach of contract and sought the market value of his personal property ($100,000+) and attorney’s fees following the sale of said property after plaintiff’s default on rental payments to our client storage facility. The court focused its analysis on waiver and estoppel based on COVID-19 publications that our client issued from their corporate offices noting leniency on payments and delays in auctions because of the pandemic. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not rely on said COVID-19 publications to establish estoppel, and as to waiver, that the plaintiff failed to carry his burden of proof. The court went on to caution the plaintiff that if he intended to appeal again, any damages would be limited to $5,000, pursuant to the contract, and attorney’s fees would not be recoverable.