St. Michael's Media v. The Mayor of Baltimore
| Decision Date | 31 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action ELH-21-2337 |
| Parties | ST. MICHAEL'S MEDIA, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Plaintiff St. Michael's Media, Inc. (“St Michael's”) filed suit in September 2021 against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (the “City”); Baltimore Mayor Brandon M. Scott, in his official and individual capacities; and Baltimore City Solicitor James L. Shea, in his official and individual capacities (collectively, the “City Defendants”).[1] St. Michael's challenged, on First Amendment grounds, the City Defendants' refusal to allow plaintiff to hold a rally and conference on November 16 2021, at the Pier VI Pavilion (“Pier VI” or the “Pavilion”) in Baltimore.[2] Along with the suit, St Michael's moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. ECF 2; ECF 15.
Pier VI is a City-owned concert venue located in the “Inner Harbor” area of Baltimore. Although the venue is owned by the City, it is managed by defendant SMG, pursuant to a contract with the City. ECF 1, ¶¶ 8-14, 33-38; ECF 25-2, ¶¶ 2, 4; ECF 16-3 at 2. At the time, SMG, a private company, operated under the name “Royal Farms Arena.” ECF 114, ¶ 7.[3]
On September 15, 2021, St. Michael's filed a “First Amended Verified Complaint.” ECF 14 (the “First Amended Complaint” or “FAC”). Among other things, the FAC added SMG as a defendant, and added a claim of breach of contract by SMG. Id.
As discussed, infra, as a result of this Court's issuance of a preliminary injunction on October 12, 2021, SMG and St. Michael's ultimately executed a contract for plaintiff's use of the Pavilion. Plaintiff's event was held on November 16, 2021, without incident. See ECF 90; ECF 95 at 2; ECF 102 at 6; ECF 114, ¶ 13.[4]
Then, on November 30, 2021, plaintiff moved to amend its suit for the second time. ECF 95. By Memorandum Opinion (ECF 108) and Order (ECF 109) of January 14, 2022, I granted the motion. The Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), filed on January 31, 2022, is the operative pleading. ECF 114. It asserts four claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and several claims under Maryland law.
Count I alleges that all defendants violated plaintiff's First Amendment “Right of Free Speech.” ECF 114, ¶¶ 78-100.[5] Count II alleges that all defendants violated plaintiff's “Right of Free Exercise of Religion,” as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Id. ¶¶ 101-16. In Count III, plaintiff claims that all defendants violated plaintiff's rights under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. ECF 114, ¶¶ 117-32. And, Count IV asserts that all defendants violated plaintiff's right of assembly, as protected by the First Amendment. Id. ¶¶ 133-52.
Counts V and VI are lodged against SMG under Maryland law. Count V asserts breach of contract (id. ¶¶ 153-72) and Count VI, alleges promissory estoppel. Id. ¶¶ 173-80. Count VII, lodged against the City Defendants, asserts tortious interference with contractual relations. Id. ¶¶ 181-86. Finally, in Count VIII, plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the actions of all defendants violated plaintiff's First Amendment rights. Id. ¶¶ 187-91. As relief, plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for breach of contract and promissory estoppel, punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and costs. Id. at Prayer for Relief.[6]
Defendants have moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (ECF 117), supported by a memorandum (ECF 117-1) (collectively, the “Motion”). The Motion is supported by the Declaration of Michael G. Huber, the Chief of Staff for Mayor Scott. ECF 117-2 (the “Huber Declaration”).
Plaintiff opposes the Motion (ECF 133, the “Opposition”), supported by two exhibits. ECF 133-1; ECF 133-2. Plaintiff also states its opposition to converting the Motion to one for summary judgment. See ECF 133 at 9. Defendants have replied. ECF 139 (the “Reply”).
No hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the Motion in part and deny it in part.[7]
I. Factual Background[8]
St. Michael's is a non-profit organization that “publishes news stories about societal issues with a particular focus on the Catholic Church” (the “Church”). ECF 114, ¶ 3. It is “vocal” about its disagreements with the Church “hierarchy,” id., and “often criticizes the current leadership of the Church.” Id. ¶ 8. The criticisms often focus on “the perception of corruption in the Church”, and as to claims about child sexual abuse committed by priests and the Church's alleged protection of those “responsible for the sexual abuse of minors.” Id. ¶¶ 8, 10.
From November 15-18, 2021, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (“USCCB”) was scheduled to meet in Baltimore at the Waterfront Marriott Hotel (the “Hotel”). Id. ¶ 9. The Hotel is a private facility located “immediately adjacent” to Pier VI. Id. ¶ 11. At least in part, plaintiff sought to hold a prayer rally and conference in order to criticize “elements of the power structure” of the Church, in the presence of Church “leadership.” Id. The event was titled: “Bishops: Enough is Enough Prayer Rally.” Id. ¶ 10. Therefore, plaintiff wanted to hold its event on a date that coincided with the USCCB's Fall General Assembly, and at a location near the site of the USCCB's meeting, so that the rally's message would “reach the Church's leadership.” Id. ¶ 11; see also id. ¶¶ 63, 64.[9] In addition, plaintiff asserts that the rally “was planned to, and did, include praying the Rosary, and thus was planned to be and was an explicitly religious demonstration.” ECF 114, ¶ 12.[10]
Notably, this was not plaintiff's first event at Pier VI. In 2018, St. Michael's held a rally at the Pavilion while the USCCB was meeting at the Hotel. Id. ¶ 13. The rally occurred without incident. Id.
With regard to the 2021 rally, St. Michael's began contract negotiations with SMG in June 2021, seeking to rent the Pavilion for the desired date. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff paid the required $3,000 deposit on an unspecified date, but prior to August 5, 2021. Id. ¶ 14. SMG “accepted and deposited” the payment, without any indication of an issue in regard to the rental. Id. And, on July 14, 2021, SMG transmitted a draft contract to plaintiff that “memorialized the terms” to which the parties had agreed. Id. ¶ 15. Plaintiff began to promote the rally, “resulting in thousands of reservations and the booking of over a dozen speakers.” Id. ¶ 14.
Then, on or about August 5, 2021, after plaintiff had paid the $3,000 deposit to SMG for use of the Pavilion on November 16, 2021, SMG “reneged on its agreement ....” Id. ¶ 17. In particular, SMG notified St. Michael's that the contract “was being unilaterally cancelled.” Id. ¶ 24. No explanation was provided for the cancellation, and SMG told plaintiff to contact Shea for “additional information.” Id. ¶ 24. According to plaintiff, the City “forced SMG to cancel the event.” Id. ¶ 25. By that point, however, the parties had not yet signed “a formal written agreement for use” of the Pavilion. Id. ¶ 15.
The next day, August 6, 2021, Michael Voris, the CEO of St. Michael's, spoke with Shea, then the City Solicitor, regarding the cancellation. Id. ¶ 26. According to plaintiff, “Shea told Mr. Voris that his office had received reports that St. Michael's had ‘ties to the January 6 [2021] riot' at the Capitol building in Washington, D.C.” Id. (alteration in original). Voris disputed the assertion. Id. ¶¶ 26, 28. Shea also cited for his explanation that the City had safety concerns, including a risk of violence and a risk of property damage, particularly because of the Pavilion's proximity to “high-scale properties.” Id. ¶ 28. During this call, Shea also stated that “he had the authority to decide to cancel St. Michael's contract with SMG, and that he did in fact exercise this authority to cancel the contract.” Id. ¶ 34.
After this litigation began, the City expanded the basis for its decision to cancel the rally, referencing safety concerns with respect to two of the rally's “controversial” speakers: Milo Yiannopoulos and Steve Bannon. Id. ¶ 46.[11] St. Michael's alleges that “Shea unilaterally canceled St. Michael's [sic] contract with SMG because the USCCB told him to” or “because the City disagreed with St. Michael's [sic] viewpoint.” Id. ¶ 43.
As noted, at the time of the cancellation, “St. Michael's and SMG had not yet signed a formal written agreement” for use of the Pavilion. Id. ¶ 15. But, plaintiff claims that “[a] contract was formed, despite the lack of final signatures on a written memorialization of that contract.” Id. ¶ 20. And, if a contract was not formed, plaintiff claims it is “solely” because the City Defendants unconstitutionally interfered. Id. ¶ 53.
As mentioned, when St. Michael's filed suit, it also moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and a preliminary injunction (“P.I.”). ECF 2 at 13. St. Michael's asked this Court to compel SMG to “fulfill its contractual obligations with St. Michael's” and to enjoin defendants from “interfering with St. Michael's preparing for and conducting” its rally on November 16, 2021. Id. at 13-14. Preliminarily, I granted the TRO, in part. ECF 9. In particular, I ordered the City Defendants not to prevent St. Michael's from making arrangements for the rally. Id. But, I did not order SMG, a non-party at the time, to execute a contract with plaintiff.
As to the P.I. Motion, I conducted evidentiary hearings on September 30, 2021, and October 1, 2021. ECF 43; ECF 44. Testimonial and documentary evidence were submitted. Then, by Memorandum...
To continue reading
Request your trial