Love v. Hogan

• Decision Date: 15 August 2022
• Docket Number: 1-21-cv-02029-JRR
• Parties: ARTHUR M. LOVE, Plaintiff, v. LARRY HOGAN, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

ARTHUR M. LOVE, Plaintiff,
v.
LARRY HOGAN, et al., Defendants.

No. 1-21-cv-02029-JRR

United States District Court, D. Maryland

August 15, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Julie R. Rubin, United States District Judge

This matter comes before the court on Defendants Larry Hogan, Boyd Rutherford, Steven McAdams, Allison Mayer, Mona Vaidya, Shareese Churchill, Matthew A. Clark, and the State of Maryland's Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 7; the “Motion.”)

The parties' submissions have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the reasons that follow, by accompanying order, the Motion will be granted as to all counts.

BACKGROUND^[1]

Plaintiff Arthur M. Love is a former appointee under the Hogan Administration.^[2] (ECF No. 1, ¶16; “Complaint.”) Each individual Defendant was at all times relevant to the complaint a government official for the State of Maryland. Id. at ¶¶2-8. Defendant State of Maryland is a corporate and political body with all the rights and powers of government. Id. at ¶9. This case

1

arises from Plaintiff's termination from his job after he posted memes in a Facebook group. (ECF No. 7, p. 2.)

On or about January 21, 2015, Plaintiff was appointed by Defendant Governor Hogan to serve as Deputy Director of Community Initiatives. In this role, Plaintiff was the lead staff member on all special events and initiatives for the Governor's Office of Community Initiatives (“GOCI”). (ECF No. 7-4, p. 2.)^[3] On or about August 28, 2020, Mr. Love, using his private account, was on a Facebook page called “Inside Maryland Politics” discussing the “civil unrest occurring in Kenosha [,Wisconsin] following the police shooting of Jacob Blake on August 23, 2020.” (ECF No. 1, ¶20.) The Complaint further alleges that Plaintiff “used his private Facebook account to discuss Mr. Rittenhouse's case and support Mr. Rittenhouse's self-defense right, communicating his personal belief that Mr. Rittenhouse's actions may have been justified under the doctrine of self-defense.” Id. ¶25. Plaintiff expressed his beliefs by posting several memes showing support for Kyle Rittenhouse and condemning the actions of the protestors. (ECF No. 7-2.)^[4] Other members of the Facebook group became discontented with Plaintiff's position, which prompted Plaintiff to leave the discussion. (ECF No. 1, ¶28.)

On August 29, 2020, Plaintiff awoke to press at his home due to the attention his Facebook posts had received, which prompted him to call his supervisor, Defendant Steven McAdams, Executive Director of the Governor's Office. (ECF No. 1, ¶27; ECF No. 7, p. 3.) On the call, Mr. McAdams informed Plaintiff that he need not worry and that they would “get through this.” (ECF No. 1, ¶28.) That same day, however, Mr. McAdams issued a public statement on behalf of the Hogan Administration that “[t]hese divisive images and statements are

2

inconsistent with the mission and core values of the Office of Community Initiatives. Earlier today, I relieved this employee of his duties.” Id. ¶33. On August 30, 2020, at approximately 8:38 a.m., Plaintiff received a phone call from Mr. McAdams informing him that he had been terminated due to his Facebook posts. Id. ¶31. On August 31, 2022, Plaintiff received his official termination letter from Mr. McAdams on behalf of the Hogan Administration. (ECF No. 1. ¶32; ECF No. 7-3.)^[5]

On August 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Complaint. The Complaint sets forth six counts: (I) Retaliation Based on Exercise of Right to Free Speech in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (II) Retaliation Based on Exercise of Right to Free Speech in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985; (III) Retaliation Based on Exercise of Right to Free Speech in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1986; (IV) Retaliation Based on Exercise of Article 40 Right to Freedom of Speech in Violation of the Maryland Tort Claims Act; (V) Wrongful Discharge under Federal Law; and (VI) Wrongful Discharge Under State Law. (ECF No. 1.) The prayer for relief seeks (i) an award of compensatory, special, and punitive damages in appropriate amounts to be established at trial; (ii) an award of costs associated with the action; and (iii) any and all other or further relief that this court deems just and proper. Id. at p. 21.

Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) arguing that Defendants' of sovereign immunity deprives the court of subject-matter jurisdiction over this action; and that even if this court does have subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims, Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 7-2, p. 5.)

3

LEGAL STANDARDS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

Defendants assert the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action because all of Plaintiff's claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. Demetres v. East West Constr., Inc., 776 F.3d 271, 272 (4th Cir. 2015). In the Fourth Circuit, the defense of sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional bar because “sovereign immunity deprives federal courts of jurisdiction to hear claims, and a court finding that a party is entitled to sovereign immunity must dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.” Cunningham v. General Dynamics Info. Tech., 888 F.3d 640, 649 (4th Cir. 2018) (quoting Ackerson v. Bean Dredging LLC, 589 F.3d 196, 207 (5th Cir. 2009)). Because sovereign immunity is akin to an affirmative defense, a defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that sovereign immunity exists. Hutto v. S.C. Ret. Sys., 773 F.3d 536, 543 (4th Cir. 2014).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

Defendants also argue that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 7-2, p. 9.) A Rule 12(b)(6) motion “tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint.” It does not “resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.” Presley v. City of Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999)). Accordingly, a “Rule 12(b)(6) motion should only be granted if, after accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true and drawing all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in the plaintiff's favor, it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief.” Edwards, 178 F.3d at 244 (citing Republican Party v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992)). The court, however, is “not required to accept as true the

4

legal conclusions set forth in a plaintiff's complaint.” Edwards, 178 F.3d at 244 (citing District 26, United Mine Workers of Am., Inc. v. Wellmore Coal Corp., 609 F.2d 1083, 1085 (4th Cir. 1979)).

CONSIDERATION OF EXHIBITS

As an initial matter, Defendants attach three exhibits to their Motion: Exhibit A - Memes posted on Facebook (ECF No. 7-2); Exhibit B - Termination Letter (ECF No. 7-3); and Exhibit C - Position Description (ECF No. 7-4). Defendants argue that the three exhibits are integral to Plaintiff's claims and, therefore, may be considered without converting the Motion from a motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment. (ECF No. 7-2, n. 2, n. 3, n. 5.)

“An important distinction must be drawn between the evidence a court may consider in reviewing a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, as opposed to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Chesapeake Bay Found Inc. v. Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC, 794 F.Supp.2d. 602, 611 (D. Md. 2011). In evaluating a motion to dismiss raised under Rule 12(b)(1), “the district court is to regard the pleadings' allegations as mere evidence on the issue, and may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding to one for summary judgment.” Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991). “The district court should apply the standard applicable to a motion for summary judgment, under which the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts beyond the pleadings to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists.” Id. (citing Trentacosta v. Frontier Pacific Aircraft Indus., 813 F.2d 1553, 1559 (9th Cir. 1987)) (citations omitted). “The moving party should prevail only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” Id. (citing Trentacosta, 813 F.2d at 1558).

5

In contrast, in ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a court usually does not consider evidence outside of the complaint. A court may consider documents attached to a motion to dismiss if the document is “integral to and explicitly relied on in the complaint and [if] the plaintiffs do not challenge its authenticity.” Am. Chiropractic Ass'n, Inc. v. Trigon Healthcare Inc., 367 F.3d 212, 234 (4th Cir. 2004) (quoting Phillips v. LCI Int'l Inc., 190 F.3d 609, 618 (4th Cir. 1999)). “An integral document is a document that by its ‘very existence, and not the mere information it contains, gives rise to the legal rights asserted.'” Chesapeake, 794 F.Supp.2d. at 611 (quoting Walker v. S.W.I.F.T. SCRL, 517 F.Supp.2d 801, 806 (E.D. Va. 2007)). “In addition to integral and authentic exhibits, on a 12(b)(6) motion the court ‘may properly take judicial notice of matters of public record.'” Id. (quoting Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009)).

In the instant case, Defendants move to dismiss all six counts of the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). As set forth above, when evaluating a Motion under 12(b)(1), the court may consider all the attached exhibits without converting the Motion to a motion for summary judgment. In the alternative, Defendants move to dismiss all six counts of the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The court finds that Exhibits A...