Panghat v. University of Maryland, 030519 MDSCA, 2236-2017

Docket Nº:2236-2017
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:LIJO PANGHAT v. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, BALTIMORE
Judge Panel:Graeff, Arthur, Moylan, Charles E., Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Case Date:March 05, 2019
Court:Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
 
FREE EXCERPT

LIJO PANGHAT

v.

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, BALTIMORE

No. 2236-2017

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

March 5, 2019

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 24-C-17-3267

Graeff, Arthur, Moylan, Charles E., Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION [*]

PER CURIAM.

Dr. Lijo Panghat, appellant, appeals from an order, issued by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, dismissing his complaint for defamation against the University of Maryland, Baltimore, appellee, (the University) for failure to submit a written claim to the State Treasurer (the Treasurer) within one year of his injury, as required § 12-106(b)(1) of the State Government Article. Dr. Panghat raises thirteen issues on appeal that reduce to two: (1) whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint, and (2) whether the motions judge erred in not recusing herself from the case. Because Dr. Panghat did not comply with § 12-106(b)(1) of the State Government Article and has not established a conflict of interest that would have required the motions judge to recuse herself sua sponte, we affirm the dismissal of his complaint.1

Dr. Panghat was employed by the University as a Post-Doctoral Fellow, but was terminated from his employment in 2016. On June 13, 2017, Dr. Panghat filed a complaint for defamation, claiming that an employee of the University had written a letter containing false information about the reasons for his termination and then sent that letter to the University's Office of International Services (OIS). Dr. Panghat alleged that he did not learn about the letter until June 14, 2016, and therefore, that his cause of action against the University did not arise until that date.

The University filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that: (1) Dr. Panghat's claim was barred because he had not submitted a written claim with the Treasurer within one year of his injury, and (2) his complaint failed to state a claim for defamation as a matter of law. Dr. Panghat filed an opposition, wherein he asserted that he had served a written claim on the Treasurer on November 27, 2017. He did not, however, provide any reason for his failure to submit the claim...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP