A.M. v. Va. Council of Churches
| Decision Date | 13 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. RDB-20-00287 |
| Parties | A.M., A MINOR, BY HER PARENTS AND NEXT FRIEND, OPRAH COOPER, JR., F/K/A ODA HAKORIMANA Plaintiff, v. VIRGINIA COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
This cases arises from an alleged incident which occurred on October 25, 2007 at a daycare facility in Hagerstown, Maryland. (ECF No. 10 at ¶ 12.) On that day, the Minor Plaintiff A.M., then a five-month old infant, allegedly suffered injuries to her neck, skull, brain, face, and eyes, as a result of actions of persons present at that facility. (Id. at ¶ 18, 19.) During the course of the last thirteen years, two previous lawsuits related to this matter have been dismissed. (ECF No. 14-2 at 2, 3.) A lawsuit filed in September of 2010 in the Circuit Court for Washington County, Maryland was dismissed for lack of prosecution. (Id. at 2.) In September of 2017, a Complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. (Id.) That case was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Id. at 3.) Ultimately, this action was filed in February of 2020 (ECF No. 1), and the Amended Complaint was filed on May 1, 2020 (ECF No. 10).
Plaintiff, A.M., by her parent and next friend Oprah Cooper, Jr., F/K/A Oda Hakorimana has filed this action against Defendants Church World Service, Inc. ("CWS"), Virginia Council of Churches, Inc. ("VCC"), as well as two individual employees of VCC, Laura Abaandou and Mary Beth Alphin. (ECF No. 1.) The Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10) contains six counts: a claim against CWS and VCC for a violation of A.M.'s constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count I); two claims for negligent supervision and training against CWS and VCC respectively (Counts II and III); two claims of vicarious liability for negligent acts committed by employees against CWS and VCC respectively (Counts IV and V); and a claim against CWS, VCC, Abaandou, and Alphin for negligence (Count VI). The Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and other and further relief as may be just and proper under the circumstances, including but not limited to appropriate injunctive relief. (ECF No. 10.)
Presently pending are the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety filed by the Defendant Church World Service, Inc. (ECF No. 14) and the Partial Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Virginia Council of Churches, Inc. (ECF No. 19), seeking dismissal of the constitutional claims set forth in Count I. The parties' submissions have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2018). For the reasons that follow, the Defendant CWS's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED and the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to CWS. The Defendant VCC's Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED, and the claim alleging violations of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Neither CWS nor VCC are state actors acting under color of state law for purposes of Section 1983.
This case shall proceed as a three-count complaint against the Defendants Virginia Council of Churches, Inc. ("VCC"), Laura Abaandou, and Mary Beth Alphin. Specifically, those three counts are failure to train and supervise against VCC (Count III), vicarious liability against VCC for the alleged negligence of employees Abaandou and Alphin (Count V), and negligence against the Defendants VCC, Abaandou, and Alphin (Count VI).1
This Court accepts as true the facts alleged in the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10). See Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388, 390 (4th Cir. 2011). Defendant Church World Service ("CWS") is a New York corporation (ECF No. 10. at ¶ 2.) CWS operates its Immigration and Refugee Program, which prepares the case files for all refugees in sub-Saharan Africa who are being considered for resettlement in the United States through a cooperative agreement with the Department of State/Bureau for Population, Refugees, and Migration. (Id.) Defendant Virginia Council of Churches, Inc. ("VCC") is a Virginia corporation and "local resettlement affiliate" of CWS. (Id. ¶ 1.) CWS receives funding for its Immigration and Refugee Program from the U.S. government, and CWS in turn provides some funding to its local affiliate, VCC. (Id. at ¶¶ 7, 8.) Specifically, VCC reported on its website that it received 17.53% of its 2006-2007 revenue from CWS. (Id.)
The Plaintiff A.M. was born in the United States, however, her mother and siblings are refugees from Tanzania, who were settled by CWS and VCC through CWS's Immigration and Refugee Program. (Id. at ¶ 5, 6.) This case arises out of an incident involving A.M. on October 25, 2007. (Id. at ¶ 12.) At this time, A.M. attended a daycare owned and operated by JessicaRodriguez in Hagerstown, Maryland. (Id. at ¶ 12.) On the day in question, A.M. was under the care of both Rodriguez and her boyfriend, Randy Rosaio. (Id. at ¶ 18.) At some point during her stay with Rodriguez and Rosaio, A.M. suffered severe injuries to her neck, skull, brain, face, and eyes. (Id.) As a result, A.M. was diagnosed with "shaken baby syndrome" and has suffered from severe and permanent damage to her brain and body. (Id. at ¶ 19.) A.M. was five months old at the time of her injuries. (Id. at ¶ 12.) She will live in a permanent state of mental and physical impairment for the remainder of her life. (Id. at ¶ 19.)
The Plaintiff claims that both CWS and VCC are at fault for this incident, as Abaandou, a VCC employee, referred A.M.'s mother to the daycare operated by Rodriguez, and VCC is a "local affiliate" of CWS. (Id. at ¶ 13.) Prior to referring A.M. to Rodriguez, Abaandou visited the daycare. (Id. at ¶ 14.) The Plaintiff claims that at the time of her visit, Abaandou was under a legal duty to ascertain whether the daycare was being operated in accordance with Maryland state laws, rules, and regulations. (Id.) According to the Amended Complaint, Abaandou admitted that she did not confirm whether the daycare had insurance in conformity with Maryland law and that she received no training or guidance from VCC as to how to properly conduct an onsite investigation of the daycare facility. (Id. at ¶ 15, 16.) The Plaintiff claims that VCC failed to properly train and supervise Abaandou to properly ascertain whether the daycare was insured pursuant to Maryland law prior to referring A.M. to said daycare. (Id. at ¶ 20.) The Plaintiff also claims that CWS failed to properly train and supervise VCC as a local resettlement affiliate to which it was providing direct financial support. (Id.) As an allegedly direct and proximate result of VCC and CWS's failures, A.M. has incurred substantial financial harm in the form of past medical expenses and will incur substantial future medicalexpenses without the ability to seek legal redress against a homeowners liability policy of the Rodriguez daycare. (Id.)
A.M. now seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 under Count I for violation of her constitutional rights under color of law against both CWS and VCC (Count I). (Id. at ¶ 22.) A.M. claims under Count II that CWS is directly liable for its negligent failure "to properly train and supervise VCC, as its local affiliate, with respect to evaluating and selecting childcare for refugees at facilities such as Rodriguez's daycare and, specifically, whether Rodriguez was in compliance with Maryland Code Annotated, Family Law Article § 5-570, et seq., and Maryland Code Annotated, Insurance section, § 19-202 (as in effect 2007)." (Id. at ¶ 25.) A.M. claims under Count III that VCC is also directly liable for a negligent failure to properly train and supervise its employee and agent Laura Abaandou with respect to the same evaluation and selection procedures. (Id. at ¶ 28.) A.M. further claims under Count IV that CWS is vicariously liable for the negligent acts committed against her by VCC, as VCC was "CWS's local resettlement agent under its [Immigration and Refugee Program] and CWS funded 17.53% of VCC's 2006-2007 Revenue by VCC's own admission." (Id. at ¶ 31.) Similarly, A.M. claims that VCC is vicariously liable for the actions of Abaandou under Count V. (Id. at ¶ 34.) Finally, under Count VI, A.M. makes a general negligence claim, asserting that CWS and VCC, as well as VCC's agents and employees, "such as Laura Abaandou," owed A.M. a duty of care to prevent the financial harm she has suffered and will continue to suffer by "voluntarily becoming involved in the resettlement of refugees such as Plaintiff and her immediate family in the United States" and "assist[ing] such non-English speaking refugees [sic] finding medical care, health insurance, housing transportation, and childcare, inter alia." (Id. at ¶¶ 37, 38.)
On May 15, 2020, Defendant CWS filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14), asking this Court to dismiss all the claims filed against it by A.M. pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 12(b)(6), and Maryland Code Annotated §§ 5-101 and 5-201. (ECF No. 14-1 at 1.) CWS argues that the Plaintiff's claims against it are time-barred, as well as that the Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts to support the claims against CWS and/or she cannot recover under the asserted theories of liability. (Id. at 5.)
On June 17, 2020, Defendant VCC filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19), asking this Court to dismiss only Count I, which alleges a violation of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
A defendant may test the legal sufficiency of a complaint by way of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Presley v. City of Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. 2006). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion constitutes an assertion by a defendant that, even if the facts alleged by a plaintiff are true, the complaint fails as a matter of law ...
To continue reading
Request your trial