Brigitte Smith (Partner-Baltimore, MD) and Brian Foster (Of Counsel-Baltimore, MD) prevailed on a motion to dismiss in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County, Maryland, on behalf of the firm’s attorney clients in a legal malpractice action. The action was the latest in a series filed by the plaintiff against his family members and legal professionals asserting claims for financial exploitation of an elder, conspiracy, and legal malpractice. The plaintiff claimed his elderly mother had been abducted by her sisters, who conspired with the defendant attorneys to have her execute documents at a time when she lacked capacity, thereby diminishing the value of the estate. Brigitte and Brian, however, argued that the plaintiff, who was seeking $488,000, did not qualify under the third-party beneficiary exception. The court agreed, barring his claims for legal malpractice as a matter of law. 

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.

Melissa Murphy-Petros (Of Counsel-Chicago, IL), Brigitte Smith (Partner-Baltimore, MD), and Zachary Miller (Associate-Baltimore, MD) represented a provider of public transportation services in Baltimore City to those with physical disabilities. The legally blind plaintiff, a regular rider, filed suit after he suffered a severe fracture when he fell on ice while walking from his front door to our client’s bus. The plaintiff claimed that our driver was negligent in not assisting him while he walked to the bus as the driver was required to do, but admitted that he did not wait for the driver to help him on the day of his injury. The case was tried to a defense verdict by Brigitte and Zak and Melissa handled the appeal. The appellate court affirmed the judgment on the jury’s verdict. The only issue plaintiff raised on appeal was the trial court’s order denying his motion to strike a supplemental medical expert opinion that we disclosed approximately 10 days before trial. It was plaintiff’s position that this testimony at trial was the basis for the jury’s defense verdict and it should not have been allowed, so he was entitled to a new trial. In the end, the court agreed with our argument that plaintiff’s own dilatory conduct in discovery led to the late timing of our supplemental disclosure in the first place, so the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to strike. 

Michael J. Silvestri (Of Counsel-Baltimore, MD) and Pascal Moleus (Associate-Baltimore, MD) obtained summary judgment in favor of a client utility contractor, resulting in dismissal of a negligence claim over a construction laborer who was involved in a manhole cover explosion at a construction site, resulting in serious injuries to the laborer’s head and abdomen and the amputation of two of the laborer’s right foot toes. In granting the motion, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, found that the laborer alleged professional negligence against the utility contractor but failed to produce required expert testimony establishing either the professional standard of care owed by the utility contractor or causation.

​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.

Kathryn A. Grace (Partner-McLean, VA) and Nakea Barksdale (Associate-Baltimore, MD) secured a defense verdict in a breach of contract dispute where the plaintiff alleged he was incorrectly charged for a membership pass offered by our airline client. The plaintiff claimed that he intended to purchase a discounted membership pass but was charged for a higher-tier pass. Through meticulous cross-examination at trial, Nakea demonstrated that the plaintiff not only purchased the premium membership pass but also used its benefits immediately, booking a flight at a significantly reduced fare. Despite the plaintiff's argument, he was unable to provide any documentation to support his claim of an incorrect charge. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the airline, reinforcing the accuracy of its records and its fulfillment of the contractual terms.

Isaac Netzer (Associate-New York, NY) and Maryan Alexander (Partner-Baltimore, MD) represented an American multinational automotive and clean energy company in a dispute that stemmed from a 2015 solar panel installation at the plaintiff’s property, with allegations surfacing in 2023 regarding roof compromise and electrical system malfunctions. The plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, violation of New York General Business Law §349, fraud in the inducement, and negligence. Isaac served as the lead on the motion to dismiss, guiding the defense strategy and briefing that resulted in a comprehensive dismissal of the $5 million complaint. The Suffolk County Supreme Court granted our motion to dismiss all claims brought by the plaintiff. The court found that the breach of contract claim was insufficiently pleaded, as it failed to identify the specific contractual provisions allegedly breached. The General Business Law §349 claim was dismissed because it arose from a private contractual dispute rather than conduct impacting consumers at large. The fraud in the inducement claim was dismissed for lack of particularity, as it did not detail specific misrepresentations or when they were made. The negligence claim was found to be duplicative of the contract claim and did not allege a distinct injury.