Butler v. Crum

• Decision Date: 19 August 2022
• Docket Number: GJH-21-03063
• Parties: AARON BUTLER, Plaintiff, v. T. CRUM #58, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

AARON BUTLER, Plaintiff,
v.
T. CRUM #58, et al., Defendants.

No. GJH-21-03063

United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division

August 19, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GEORGE J. HAZEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Aaron Butler brought this civil action against Defendants Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”), Metro Transit Police Department (“MTPD”), and Officers T. Crum, A. Diffley, and N. Miller, in their individual and official capacities, alleging gross negligence (Count I), negligence (Counts II-III & IX), vicarious liability (Count IV), battery (Count V), negligent entrustment/supervision (Count VI), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count VII), false imprisonment (Count VIII), violations of constitutional rights under Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights (Count X), and violations of constitutional rights under Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights (Count XI). ECF No. 4. Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, For Summary Judgment, or Both, ECF No. 13.^[1] No hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, for Summary Judgment, or Both is granted, in part, and denied, in part and this case will be remanded to state court.

1

I. BACKGROUND^[2]

A. Factual Background

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, on or about May 30, 2018, he rode a Metro train, owned and operated by Defendant WMATA, to the Landover Metro Station in Prince George's County, Maryland, where he exited the train. ECF No. 4 ¶ 7. Plaintiff alleges that he walked to a fare gate and tapped his metro card to exit, however, the gate did not open, and Plaintiff then walked to a fare card machine, returned to the gates, and exited through the emergency gate. Id. He contends that “before he had the opportunity to seek out assistance from a Metro station attendant,” Defendant Officers Diffley and Miller approached Plaintiff and “immediately and together unlawfully physically detained him.” Id. ¶ 8. After a crowd formed around Plaintiff and Defendants, an unknown citizen tried to give Plaintiff money to pay his fare, which Plaintiff contends Defendant Officers Diffley and Miller attempted to block “because [Plaintiff] was being detained.” Id. Plaintiff eventually received the money, walked back inside the station, applied the money to his Metro card, and paid his fare. Id. Defendants Diffley and Miller followed Plaintiff inside and “advised him that he was being placed under arrest,” but Plaintiff “moved away” from Defendants Diffley and Miller and exited the Metro Station. Id. ¶ 9.

Plaintiff further alleges that when he reached the sidewalk in front of and surrounding the Metro Station, he saw “several other” Metro Transit Police issued cruisers pulling into the parking lot. Id. ¶ 10. He then “began to lawfully walk through the parking lot of the Landover Metro Station,” when Defendant Officer Crum, a Metro Transit Police Officer, “operating a

2

WMATA issued vehicle . . . accelerated the vehicle towards Plaintiff . . . failed to yield to the Plaintiff . . . and drove the motor vehicle into the Plaintiff's body, striking him, causing a violent collision with his person and causing significant and permanent injuries to Plaintiff.” Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiff's right ankle was crushed and fractured, which required surgical intervention and “is permanent in nature.” Id. Defendants dispute the veracity of Plaintiff's allegations, as well as Defendants' responsibility for them. ECF No. 13-1.

B. Procedural History

On or about May 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit against WMATA in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Prince George's County. ECF No. 1 ¶ 1. On December 1, 2021, WMATA removed the action to this Court “pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Transportation Article, §10-204(81), which specifically grants original jurisdiction over suits against WMATA to the United States District Court.” Id. ¶ 4. On February 14, 2022, Defendants filed the now pending Motion to Dismiss, for Summary Judgment, or Both, ECF No. 13. On March 16, 2022, Plaintiff opposed the Motion, ECF No. 16, and on March 28, 2022, Defendants replied, ECF No. 17.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A claim of sovereign immunity is appropriately decided through a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction brought under Rule 12(b)(1) because “[s]overeign immunity strips the court of jurisdiction[.]” Smith v. Scalia, 44 F.Supp.3d 28, 40 n.10 (D.D.C. 2014); see also Smith v. WMATA, 290 F.3d 201, 205 (4th Cir. 2002) (“To the extent [WMATA's] complained-of actions fall within its cloak of immunity, we lack subject matter jurisdiction over such claims.”); Burkhart v. WMATA, 112 F.3d 1207, 1216 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that “sovereign immunity claims are jurisdictional”).

3

“A district court should grant a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) ‘only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.'” Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 887 F.3d 637, 645 (4th Cir. 2018) (quoting Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999)). “The burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction rests with the plaintiff.” Demetres v. East West Constr., 776 F.3d 271, 272 (4th Cir. 2015). “When a defendant challenges subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), ‘the district court is to regard the pleadings as mere evidence on the issue, and may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding to one for summary...