Todman v. Mayor & City Council of Balt.
| Decision Date | 23 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. GLR-19-3296 |
| Citation | 488 F.Supp.3d 218 |
| Parties | Marshall TODMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Conor Brendan O. Croinin, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Joseph Mack, The Law Offices of Joseph S. Mack, Baltimore, MD, Megan Samantha McKoy, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Renita Lynne Collins, Baltimore City Solicitor's Office, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.
Bruce Lawrence Mann, Levy Mann Caplan Hermann and Polashuk LLP, Larry Caplan, Larry Caplan PA, Owings Mills, MD, for Defendant Brock Collins.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Mayor and City Council of Baltimore's (the "City") Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (ECF No. 30) and Defendant Brock Collins’ Motion to Dismiss Counts II, III, IV, V, and VI of the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 29). The Motions are ripe for disposition, and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2018). For the reasons outlined below, the Motions will be granted in part and denied in part.
To understand the facts and issues here, it is helpful to begin with a brief review of the state and local laws governing residential evictions.
Maryland law prohibits non-judicial evictions for residential tenancies. See Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. ["RP"] § 8-216. As such, "a landlord may take possession of a dwelling unit from a tenant or tenant holding over" only "[i]f the tenant has abandoned or surrendered possession of the dwelling unit" or "[i]n accordance with a warrant of restitution issued by a court and executed by a sheriff or constable." Id. § 8-216(b)(2).
To receive a warrant of restitution, the landlord must "make [a] complaint in writing to the District Court of the county where the property is located." Id. § 8-402(b)(1)(i). Upon receipt of the landlord's written complaint, the district court will direct "any constable or sheriff of the county entitled to serve process ... to notify the tenant, assignee, or subtenant to appear ... before the court to show cause why restitution should not be made to the landlord." Id. § 8-402(b)(1)(ii). The sheriff typically must "serve the summons on the tenant, assignee, or subtenant on the property," but if the tenant cannot be located, the sheriff may "affix an attested copy of the summons conspicuously on the property." Id. After a hearing, the district court may enter "judgment for the restitution of the possession of [the] premises" in favor of the landlord and, upon the landlord's request, "issue [a] warrant [of restitution] to the sheriff" of the relevant county. Id. § 8-402(b)(2)(i). In Baltimore City, a landlord must file a petition for warrant of restitution within sixty days after the district court enters judgment in favor of the landlord. Balt. City, Md., Code of Pub. Local Laws art. 4, § 9-6.
Baltimore City Code provides: "Whenever a judgment is entered in favor of the landlord for possession of a leased dwelling, the landlord shall notify the tenant of the date on which the warrant of restitution is first scheduled to be executed by the Sheriff." Balt. City, Md., Hous. and Urban Renewal Code art. 13 ["City Housing Code"], § 8A-2(b). The notice must be mailed by first-class mail at least fourteen days before the scheduled eviction date and posted on the premises at least seven days before the scheduled eviction date. Id. § 8A-2(c). Additionally, the notice must specify the date of the eviction and "prominently warn the tenant that any property left in the leased dwelling will be considered abandoned and may be disposed of on execution of the warrant of restitution." Id. § 8A-2(d)(2), (4). The notice requirement is waived under certain circumstances, including in actions involving tenants holding over. Id. § 8A-2(a)(2)(iii). A tenant holding over is a tenant who "unlawfully hold[s] over beyond the expiration of the lease or termination of the tenancy." See RP § 8-402(a)(1).
As for a tenant's personal property, Baltimore City Code states that "[a]ll property in or about the leased premises at the time that the warrant of restitution is executed is abandoned." City Housing Code § 8A-4(a). Upon execution of the warrant of restitution, the landlord must "dispose of abandoned eviction chattels" by "transporting them to a licensed landfill or solid waste facility," "donating them to charity," or using "some other legal means." Id. § 8A-5(a). The landlord may not dispose of "eviction chattels, abandoned or otherwise, [by placing them] in a public right-of-way or on any public property." Id. § 8A-6. "Neither the landlord nor someone acting on the landlord's behalf is liable for any loss or damage to abandoned property." Id. § 8A-4(b).
Plaintiffs Marshall Todman and Tiffany Gattis rented an apartment on the first floor of 4214 Ridgewood Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland from landlord Brock Collins. (Am. Compl. ¶ 11, ECF No. 26). Plaintiffs had an oral lease with Collins and lived in the apartment for approximately nine months. (Id. ¶¶ 13–14). During their tenancy, Collins repeatedly urged Plaintiffs to move to another one of his rental units. (Id. ¶ 14). Collins eventually filed a tenant-holding-over action in the District Court of Maryland sitting in Baltimore City claiming that Plaintiffs’ lease was month-to-month and that he had terminated the lease. (Id. ¶ 15). Plaintiffs received notice of the tenant-holding-over action through a posting on the door of their apartment. (Id. ¶ 17).
Plaintiffs and Collins attended the hearing before the district court on July 2, 2019. (Id. ¶ 24). At the hearing, Plaintiffs stated they planned to move into a new home on August 2, 2019. (Id. ¶ 25). The judge asked Collins whether he would agree to stay the eviction until then, but Collins replied that he was concerned it would take him "several additional weeks" to evict Plaintiffs in the event they did not move out on the date they said they would. (Id. ¶ 26). The judge informed the parties that an eviction would "likely be scheduled at least two ... weeks" after the issuance of a warrant of restitution; thus, an eviction would be scheduled for "shortly after August 2" if Collins filed for a warrant of restitution on July 17, 2019 after a two-week stay of the judgment. (Id. ¶¶ 27–28). The judge also confirmed that staying the judgment for two weeks would permit Plaintiffs to remain in the apartment for the "full month" before being evicted. (Id. ¶ 29). As a result, the parties consented to a stay of the judgment until July 16, 2019. (Id. ). Before the hearing concluded, Collins told the judge that he planned to file for the warrant of restitution on July 17, 2019. (Id. ¶ 30).
Despite this assurance, Collins filed for a warrant of restitution on July 15, 2019, which the court issued on July 16, 2019. (Id. ¶¶ 33–34). The Baltimore City Sheriff's Office scheduled the eviction for two weeks later, on July 31, 2019. (Id. ¶ 35). Collins did not notify Plaintiffs of the scheduled eviction date. (Id. ¶ 36).
On July 31, 2019, while Plaintiffs were at work, Collins arrived at the apartment with a Baltimore City Sheriff to evict Plaintiffs and change the locks on the Property. (Id. ¶¶ 38–39). At the time, Plaintiffs’ belongings were packed into boxes in preparation for their upcoming move. (Id. ¶ 41). Collins then texted Plaintiffs that "he now owned all of their belongings." (Id. ). Collins also moved Todman's motorcycle off the street, inserted a wheel-locking mechanism, chained it to a tree, and informed Plaintiffs "that it too now belonged to him." (Id. ¶ 40). Plaintiffs returned home immediately upon learning of the eviction, but Collins had already changed the locks on the apartment. (Id. ¶ 41).
Plaintiffs subsequently demanded that Collins return their belongings, but Collins refused to do so unless Plaintiffs paid him "thousands of dollars." (Id. ¶¶ 42–43). Plaintiffs reported Collins’ conduct to the Baltimore City Police Department, but the police informed them that "Collins had the right to take their belongings as a result of the eviction" and he "now owned all of Plaintiffs’ belongings." (Id. ¶ 44).
On November 15, 2019, Plaintiffs brought suit against the City and Collins.2 (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on January 17, 2020. (ECF No. 26). In their six-count Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege: damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City (Count I); declaratory judgment against the City and Collins (Count II); conversion against Collins (Count III); trespass to chattels against Collins (Count IV); unjust enrichment against Collins (Count V); and violation of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act against Collins (Count VI). (See id. ¶¶ 50–82). Plaintiffs seek damages, declaratory judgment, and attorneys’ fees. (Id. at 22).
On January 29, 2020, Collins filed his Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 29). The City filed its Motion to Dismiss on January 31, 2020. (ECF No. 30). Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Collins’ Motion on February 12, 2020 and to the City's Motion on February 14, 2020. (ECF Nos. 32 & 33). The City and Collins each filed a Reply on March 6, 2020. (ECF Nos. 42 & 43).
The City and Collins move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. "The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is to test the sufficiency of a complaint," not to "resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses."
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243–44 (4th Cir. 1999) (quoting Republican Party v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992) ). A complaint fails to state a claim if it does not contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butler v. Crum
...Counts I-II, V, VII-VIII, and X-XI against them must also be dismissed with prejudice. See Davis, 2020 WL 7489011, at *2; Burns, 488 F.Supp.3d at 218. Separately, Plaintiff's claims against Defendant MTPD must also be dismissed. Article XVI, Section 76 of the WMATA Compact authorized the es......