Haskins v. Baylis

• Decision Date: 07 June 2006
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. RDB 04-2488.
• Citation: 440 F.Supp.2d 455
• Parties: Frances W. HASKINS, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. J. Frank BAYLIS, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

440 F.Supp.2d 455

Frances W. HASKINS, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v.J. Frank BAYLIS, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

Civil Action No. RDB 04-2488.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

June 7, 2006.

Edward A. Richitelli, Law Office of Edward Richitelli, Elkton, MD, for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant.

David Jay Hyman, Mt. Airy, MD, for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BENNETT, District Judge.

Pending before this Court are three motions: PlaintiffFrances W. Haskins' ("Plaintiff' or "Haskins")Motion for Summary Judgment; DefendantJ. Frank Baylis' ("Defendant" or "Baylis")Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment; and Defendant's Motion to Strike.The parties' submissions have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary.See Local Rule 105.6(D.Md.2004).For the reasons stated below, PlaintiffsMotion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and Defendant's Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot.As a result, this case will proceed to trial without a jury on all counts.

BACKGROUND

I.Factual History.

Baylis is a breeder of Australian Shepherds and other purebred dogs.He recently won the "Best of Breed" award in three breeds and "First" in the herding group at the Westminster Kennel Club dog show at Madison Square Garden in New York City.(SeeBaylis Mem. Supp. Summ. J.p. 7.)Haskins, who has known Baylis on a casual basis since 1970, approached Baylis in 1999 to discuss entering into a cooperative arrangement to raise and exhibit certain dogs.(Id. at 9.)Shortly thereafter, Baylis and Haskins entered into an oral partnership agreement for purposes of breeding and exhibiting dogs that are registered with the American Kennel Club, Inc.("AKC").¹

In 2003, a dispute developed between Baylis and Haskins with respect to a dog — named "Fib" — that they co-owned with an individual named Caterina O'Sullivan("O'Sullivan").Baylis contends that he authorized Haskins to offer $1,000 to O'Sullivan to buy out her undivided one-third interest in Fib.(SeeBaylis Mem. Supp. Summ. J.p. 12.)In early 2004, however, Haskins paid O'Sullivan $2,500 for her interest in Fib.(Id.)Baylis was angry when he learned that Haskins did not comply with his instructions.(Id.)Baylis told Haskins that he would no longer participate in their cooperative arrangement and demanded the return of all dogs that they co-owned.(Id.)Haskins refused to return the dogs unless Baylis reimbursed her for money that she spent on the dogs.(Id.)

On March 15, 2004, Haskins wrote a letter to Baylis providing that:

What I see from here is a person that is not happy, who has no peace at all in his life ... strained, to the point of breaking, relationships with the people closest to you.You've achieved great success but often feel no satisfaction.You seem so afraid of being betrayed, you set up impossible tests for those of us that love you and make sure we fail in your eyes.You try to control your relationships with fear rather than respect and love.You refuse to take responsibility for your role in problem relationships, most of which are defined by conflict.It breaks my heart to see you self-destruct.I've known you for 30 years.I love you and wish you would sit down and think about where you are right now.I truly believe "once an addict always an addict", because I am one.I know that you have just substituted prescription drugs for alcohol.You were in AA long enough to know that the end result of an untreated addiction is death or prison — a lonely prison of your own making....I'm scared you're killing yourself, destroying everything of value in the process.If I didn't care about you, this letter would only be about the dogs.Right now my biggest concern is you.Bottom line — admitting the pills are a problem and your life is unmanageable is the first step.

(Haskins Mem. Supp. Summ. J., attached as unmarked exhibit, pp. 1-2.)The letter was written on University of Delaware, Department of Psychology letterhead.(Id.)Haskins does not dispute that she disclosed the contents of this letter to Jeff Margeson, Chris Dale, Debbie Mills, Peggy Faith, and Chris Strom.(Id. at 1.)Three of these individuals — Jeff Margeson, Chris Dale, and Debbie Mills — were Baylis' friends.(SeeBaylisMem. Supp. Summ. J. p: 14.)Baylis considers Peggy Faith to be an "avowed enemy."(Id.)Finally, Chris Strom is an AKC employee and friend of Haskins.(Id.;see alsoHaskins Mem. Supp. Summ. J.p. 2.)

In mid-2004, Baylis contends that he discovered that Haskins had forged his signature on certain official AKC documents.(SeeBaylis Mem. Supp. Summ. J.p. 16.)After investigating this matter, the AKC suspended Haskins' ability to exercise registration privileges for a period of three months and fined Haskins $500.(Id. at 17.)The suspension was published in the March 2005 issue of the AKC Gazette.(Id. at Ex. 26.)As a result, Haskins was also suspended from the Australian Shepherd Association.(Id. at p. 17.)

II.Procedural History.

On May 25, 2004, Haskins filed a complaint against Baylis and the AKC in the Circuit Court for Cecil County, Maryland.(SeeRemoval Notice¶ 2.)On July 27, 2004, Baylis filed a Notice of Removal that purported to remove the action to this Court.(Id.)The case was assigned Civil ActionNo. 04-2488.On August 8, 2004, Baylis initiated a separate action in this Court by filing a complaint against Haskins and the University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware ("University of Delaware").On November 11, 2004, this case — Civil ActionNo. 04-2555 — was reassigned to Judge Andre M. Davis.On January 10, 2005, Judge Davis granted in part the University of Delaware's unopposed Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Venue and transferred the action to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.On January 3, 2005, this Court granted the AKC's unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment.On January 11, 2005, Judge Davis denied the parties' Joint Motion to Withdraw this Court's order transferring this action.On February 4, 2005, Baylis voluntarily dismissed his claims against the University of Delaware.(SeePaperNo. 19.)On February 28, 2005, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware transferred this action back to this Court, where the case was reassigned to the undersigned Judge of this Court.(SeePaperNo. 20.)

On February 28, 2005, this Court consolidated the civil actions described above pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42, and ordered that all future pleadings be filed under Civil ActionNo. 04-2488.On May 25, 2005, this Court granted Baylis' Motion to Amend Complaint.²On October 31, 2005, Haskins filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.(SeePaperNo. 50.)On November 28, 2005, Baylis filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.(SeePaperNo. 52.)On January 11, 2006, Baylis filed a Motion to Strike.(SeePaperNo. 59.)The parties have consented to a trial without a jury.(SeePaperNo. 23;PaperNo. 48 ¶ D.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c)(emphasis added).In Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202(1986), the Supreme Court explained that only "facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law" are material.Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505.Moreover, a dispute over a material fact is genuine"if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."Id.The Court further explained that, in considering a motion for summary judgment, a judge's function is limited to determining whether sufficient evidence supporting a claimed factual dispute exists to warrant submission of the matter to a jury for resolution at trial.Id. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505.In that context, a court is obligated to consider the facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable able to the nonmoving party.Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538(1986);see alsoE.E. O.C. v. Navy Federal Credit Union,424 F.3d 397, 405(4th Cir.2005).

When both parties file motions for summary judgment, as here, the court applies the same standards of review.Taft Broad. Co. v. United States,929 F.2d 240, 248(6th Cir.1991);ITCO Corp. v. Michelin Tire Corp., 722 F.2d 42, 45 n. 3(4th Cir.1983)("The court is not permitted to resolve genuine issues of material fact on a motion for summary judgment — even where ... both parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment.")(emphasis omitted), cert. denied,469 U.S. 1215, 105 S.Ct. 1191, 84 L.Ed.2d 337(1985).The role of the courtis to "rule on each party's motion on an individual and separate basis, determining, in each case, whether a judgment may be entered in accordance with the Rule 56 standard."Towne Mgmt. Corp. v. Hartford Ace. & Indem. Co.,627 F.Supp. 170, 172(D.Md.1985)."[B]y the filing of a motion [for summary judgment]a party concedes that no issue of fact exists under the theory he is advancing, but he does not thereby so concede that no issues remain in the event his adversary's theory is adopted."Nafco Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Appleman,380 F.2d 323, 325(10th Cir.1967);see alsoMcKenzie v. Sawyer,684 F.2d 62, 68 n. 3(D.C.Cir.1982)("[N]either party waives the right to a full trial on the merits by filing its own motion.").However, when cross-motions for summary judgment demonstrate a basic agreement concerning what legal theories and material facts are dispositive, they"may be probative of the non existence of a factual dispute."Shook v. United States,713 F.2d 662, 665(11th Cir.1983).

DISCUSSION

...