Mua v. Maryland
| Decision Date | 15 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No.: ELH-16-01435 |
| Parties | JOSEPHAT MUA, et al. Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF MARYLAND, et al. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
On May 12, 2016, plaintiffs Josephat Mua and Francoise Vandenplas, husband and wife who are self-represented, filed suit against the State of Maryland ("Maryland" or "State"); California Casualty Indemnity Exchange ("CCIE"), an insurance company; and Marsden & Seledee, LLC ("Marsden & Seledee" or "The Firm"), a law firm. See ECF 1, "Complaint." According to plaintiffs, defendants have violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.; the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.; and Maryland law with respect to events that transpired following a vehicular accident that occurred in August 2011. ECF 1, ¶ 8.1
The proverbial "kitchen sink" Complaint contains numerous causes of action, as follows: "Violation of Article 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights" (Count I; Count II); "Common Law - Abuse" (Count III); Retaliation (Count IV); Conspiracy (Count V); "Injunction Against Marsden & Seledee; California Casualty Indemnity Exchange for Unlawful Interference with the Administration and Enforcement of the Laws of Maryland" (Count VI); "Breach Of Duty" (Count VII); Negligence (Count VIII); "Discrimination And Unfair Termination Provisions" (Count IX); "Improper Termination Practice" (Count X); "Violation Of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Lack of license in Maryland" (Count XI); "(Legal Malpractice Against Defendants)" (Count XII); "Breach of Fiduciary Duty against Defendants" (Count XIII); and Fraud (Count XIV). See ECF 1 at 11-30.
Plaintiffs seek $10,000,000 in damages. ECF 1 at 28.2 They also aver, inter alia, that the case sub judice is urgent because Vandenplas has been subject to illegal wage garnishment in connection with a contested obligation to reimburse CCIE for an alleged insurance overpayment. See, e.g., ECF 1 at 9, 11, 13, 27.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6), the State has filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment (ECF 17), supported by a memorandum (ECF 17-1) (collectively, "State Motion to Dismiss") and an exhibit. ECF 17-2. Plaintiffs have responded (ECF 32, "Opposition"), supported by 40 exhibits, filed separately in paper format. The State has not replied, and the time to do so has expired. See Local Rule 105.2(a).
CCIE and Marsden & Seledee also filed a joint motion to dismiss (ECF 10), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), supported by a memorandum (ECF 10-1) (collectively, "Joint Motion to Dismiss"), and exhibits. ECF 10-2 to ECF 10-5. Plaintiffs have responded (ECF 31, "Opposition"), supported by 37 exhibits, filed separately in paper format. Defendants have replied. ECF 38 ("Reply").
In addition, CCIE and The Firm filed a motion for costs and attorneys' fees and for a pre-filing injunction against plaintiff (ECF 25), supported by a memorandum (ECF 25-1) (collectively, "Motion for Sanctions"), and numerous exhibits. ECF 25-3 to ECF 25-47. Plaintiffs responded (ECF 31) and defendants replied. ECF 38. Defendants also submitted a supplement to their Motion for Sanctions. ECF 40.
Furthermore, on July 15, 2016, approximately two months after filing this suit, plaintiffs filed a notice of removal that was docketed in this case. See ECF 24 ("Notice of Removal").3 In the Notice of Removal, plaintiffs attempted to remove the case of California Casualty Indemnity Exchange v. Mua, et al., Case Number 9381D, from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441-1447, 1404, 1406, and 1631. ECF 24. CCIE and Marsden & Seledee filed a joint motion to strike that notice of removal (ECF 28, "Motion to Strike"), supported by an exhibit. ECF 28-1. Plaintiffs have responded. ECF 39. Defendants have not replied, and the time to do so has expired. See Local Rule 105.2(a).
No hearing is necessary to resolve the various motions. See Local Rule 105.6.
For the reasons that follow, I shall grant both motions to dismiss. I shall also grant the Motion to Strike. But, I will deny the Motion for Sanctions.
The lengthy Complaint is difficult to decipher. According to plaintiffs, this "matter arises out of a motor vehicle incident that occurred on August 26th, 2011," in which Ms. Vandenplas was involved. ECF 1, ¶ 8. Plaintiffs' claims are rooted in their insurance dispute with CCIE, which followed the motor vehicle accident, and in the alleged collection efforts by Marsden & Seledee to recover CCIE's overpayment of insurance benefits to plaintiffs. Id. ¶¶ 8-21.
The driver who allegedly caused the motor vehicle accident was insured by Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate"). ECF 1, ¶ 12. Plaintiffs were insured by CCIE at the time of the accident and presented CCIE with a claim for damages. It appears that CCIE issued a check to plaintiffs in the amount of $5,128.83. Id. ¶¶ 23, 24. CCIE subsequently sought reimbursement for that sum. Id. ¶¶ 23-33. Plaintiffs contested the reimbursement and litigation ensued. The basis for the desired reimbursement is discussed, infra.
An electronic search in the Maryland Judiciary Case Search system yielded numerous results for cases in Maryland that involve litigation among plaintiffs, CCIE, and Marsden & Seledee. See MARYLAND JUDICIARY CASE SEARCH CRITERIA, http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch//process Disclaimer.jis (searching by name: Mua, Josephat) (last visited January 31, 2017).5
In July 2014, in the District Court of Maryland for Montgomery County, CCIE, represented by Joel Seledee, Esquire, of the law firm of Marsden & Seledee, sued Mua and Vandenplas to recover the disputed overpayment. Case No. 0602-0005340-2014 ("State Case"). The complaint in the State Case is docketed as an exhibit at ECF 25-6. It recites many of the same underlying facts of this case.
In the State Case, CCIE alleged that in March 2012 Mua and Vandenplas received a settlement of $8,813.66 from Allstate and asserts that Mua and Vandenplas pursued and received a claim for property damages from CCIE after Allstate had already compensated them for the same damages. Id., ¶¶ 5-7.6 To prevent a windfall double recovery, CCIE sought to recover $5,128.83 from Mua and Vandenplas, on the theory of unjust enrichment. On December 10, 2014, judgment was entered against Mua and Vandenplas, in the amount of $5,128.83, plus costs.
At about the same time, on December 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed suit in this Court, captioned Mua and Vandenplas v. California Casualty Indemnity Exchange and Marsden & Seledee, LLC, PJM-14-3810 ("First Federal Case"). The First Federal Case was assigned to Judge Messitte.
Then, on January 8, 2015, about a month after judgment in the State Case was entered against Mua and Vandenplas and in favor of CCIE, Mua and Vandenplas removed the State Case to this Court. See PJM-15-060 (), ECF 1; id. at ECF 35-1 at 2; id. at ECF 40. In other words, plaintiffs removed the State Case after they lost that case in State court. The Second Federal Case was also assigned to Judge Messitte. Soon after, plaintiffs filed a notice (id. at ECF 33) indicating that the Second Federal Case was related to the First Federal Case. Notably, the facts of the First Federal Case and the Second Federal Case (i.e., the State Case) are largely the same as those set forth in the case sub judice.
Judge Messitte dismissed the First Federal Case on August 17, 2015. Id. at ECF 30; ECF 31. The Fourth Circuit affirmed on February 29, 2016. Id. at ECF 37; ECF 41.
On February 4, 2015, Judge Messitte remanded the Second Federal Case (PJM-15-060) to State court, finding that it was untimely removed and that, in any event, Mua and Vandenplas had failed to set forth a valid basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at ECF 38 at 2-3; ECF 39; ECF 40. In his Memorandum Opinion (id. at ECF 38), Judge Messitte noted that there had already been a trial on the merits in the State Case in December 2014, and that, prior to removal, judgment had been entered in favor of CCIE and against Mua and Vandenplas. See id. at ECF 38 at 2; see also PJM-15-060, ECF 35, ¶¶ 5, 6; ECF 35-1 at 2; ECF 35-2. Judge Messitte cited ECF 35-2, which is a copy of the Judgment in the District Court of Maryland for Montgomery County, dated December 10, 2014, in the amount of $5,128.83, plus costs of $118, entered in favor of CCIE and against both Mua and Vandenplas, jointly and severally.
In the case sub judice, plaintiffs appear to allege that CCIE is not entitled to the $5,128.83 awarded in the State Case and that CCIE failed to assist them adequately after the accident, such as by failing to reimburse them for the cost of a rental car, which cost "more than $1,000," and was a benefit to which they were allegedly entitled under their insurance policy. ECF 1 at 2, ¶¶ 18, 21, 24, 33. Plaintiffs also complain that CCIE canceled their insurance policy, without notice, which required plaintiffs to obtain new, more expensive insurance. Id. ¶¶ 65, 68. Further, plaintiffs maintain that the insurance policy was canceled either because of Mua's national origin, which is Kenyan (id. ¶¶ 81, 83), or in retaliation for Mua's protected political activity of filing "complaints of wrongdoing in Maryland against the Union with ties to CCIE." Id. at 2.
The Firm, based in Baltimore (ECF 1, ¶ 4), was hired by CCIE to recover the outstanding overpayment. See, e.g., id. at 2. Plaintiffs take issue with The Firm's debt collection practices. Id. They contend that Marsden & Seledee "is liable to Plaintiffs both as a direct matter of respondeat superior for the aforesaid negligence [CCIE] and/or such other and/or different of its agents as discovery shall disclose." ECF 1, ¶ 103.
And, as to Maryland's involvement in the suit, plaintiffs allege the following, ECF 1 at 2: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial