Wallace v. Poulos

Decision Date22 March 2012
Docket NumberCivil Action No. DKC 08–0251.
Citation861 F.Supp.2d 587
PartiesWilliam E. WALLACE, et al. v. Patricia A. POULOS, et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Maryland

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Timothy Michael Gunning, Law Offices of Timothy M. Gunning LLC, Towson, MD, Joseph M. Creed, Steven B. Vinick, Timothy Francis Maloney, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, Greenbelt, MD, William E. Wallace, III, Clifford Chance U.S. LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Charles Lowell Frederick, Office of the County Attorney for Montgomery County MD, William A. Snoddy, Montgomery County Attorneys Office, Rockville, MD, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, District Judge.

On April 21, 2011, a jury awarded Plaintiffs William Wallace and Georgiana Wallace a total of $3,003,001 in nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages because of an incident occurring on the evening of December 27, 2007. Among other things, the jury concluded that two Montgomery County police officers, Defendants Patricia Poulos and Shon Barr, violated certain of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, ostensibly in the course of serving a temporary protective order (“TPO”). Both sides subsequently filed post-trial motions: Plaintiffs filed a motion for equitable relief and for judgment as a matter of law as to three claims rejected by the jury (ECF No. 169), while Defendants moved for a new trial or remittitur (ECF No. 168). Following submission of Defendants' motion, Plaintiffs also moved for limited post-judgment discovery to aid their opposition to Defendants' motion. (ECF No. 181). The court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed necessary. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs' motion for equitable relief and for judgment as a matter of law will be denied, and Defendants' motion for a new trial or remittitur will be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs' motion for post-judgment discovery will be denied as moot.

I. BackgroundA. Factual Background

The following represents the facts as they were presented at trial. William Wallace is the father of five children, including a daughter named Georgiana, who was three years old at the time of the incident that gave rise to the present litigation. After a contentious custody dispute in 2006 between Wallace and Georgiana's biological mother, Deanne Upson, a Virginia court awarded Wallace full custody in March 2007.1 Georgiana now lives with her father and, at all times relevant to this suit, Wallace has had sole custody of her.

On December 27, 2007, Upson appeared pro se in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and requested a civil TPO against Wallace. Upson led the court to believe that she had been awarded custody of Georgiana and that Wallace had threatened her in some way. The court accordingly issued the requested ex parte order, which instructed that (a) Wallace was not to “assault, threaten, stalk, harass or physically abuse” Upson or Georgiana, and (b) custody was to be “left under the provisions of the custody case D.C. Superior Court 2004 PCS 1375.”

After obtaining the order, Upson drove to Wallace's home in Montgomery County and called the Montgomery County Police Department. She informed the police that she had an order to pick up her daughter and asked for an officer's help in delivering the order to Wallace. Montgomery County Police dispatched two officers, Defendants Shon Barr and Patricia Poulos. Poulos and Barr then accompanied Upson onto Wallace's property.

From there, the parties' accounts diverged substantially.

Wallace says that he was in his house when he spotted a police cruiser coming up his driveway. He testified that he walked from his house into his garage to open the garage door and speak with the police officers away from Georgiana (who was in the house). Before he could get out of the garage, however, both officers entered the garage—even after Wallace asked them to wait for him in the driveway.

Wallace testified that Poulos immediately confronted him and asked if he had been in D.C. court that morning. When he answered that he had not, Poulos purportedly told him he “should have been” because the “D.C. court h[ad] transferred custody of Georgiana to her mother.” When Wallace offered to show his Virginia custody orders, Poulos responded that she did not care about his order because she had her own order. Once Wallace was able to look at the D.C. order, he tried to explain to Poulos that it was not a custody order. She did not respond to his explanations, but instead insisted that Wallace bring Georgiana out of the house.

Wallace testified at trial that Georgiana then appeared at the door to the garage. He took her back inside the house and insisted she remain there. He then returned to the garage and told the officers that he would not bring Georgiana out. Wallace testified that the officers responded aggressively, continuing to insist that he bring his daughter out of the house and even pointing a taser at him. Eventually, said Wallace, the officers grabbed him by the arm and pushed him down onto the hood of a car. Barr handcuffed him.

Wallace testified that he then watched as Poulos entered his house, although he told her not to enter. Poulos picked up Georgiana—who by this point was screaming and crying—and carried her out of the house, passing just by Wallace. Poulos placed Georgiana in Upson's vehicle and then returned to the garage. She took Wallace's wallet out of his pocket, again without his permission, to obtain identification. The officers eventually arrested Wallace and took him into custody.

Officers Poulos and Barr recounted an entirely different version of events regarding their visit to Wallace's home. According to the officers, they arrived at the home and introduced themselves to Wallace when they saw him in his garage. Poulos informed Wallace that she and Barr were there to serve him with a TPO, and she entered the garage to avoid having to yell while reading it. Poulos and Barr maintain that Wallace never told them that he had custody of Georgiana. Wallace apparently became “enraged” and began cursing and screaming almost immediately after Poulos started reading the TPO, asserting that he would not comply with the order and puffing out his chest, balling his fists, and flailing his arms. Poulos then saw Wallace turn toward Georgiana, who was on the steps leading from the house into the garage, “throw” her into the house and slam the door in her face.2 At this time, Georgiana began to cry hysterically.

Wallace then turned back toward Poulos, with his fists balled, and moved toward her. To protect herself, Poulos stepped back, pulled out her taser, and pointed it at Wallace. Fearing that Wallace would physically attack his partner, Barr stepped in behind Wallace and placed him in handcuffs. Poulos determined that Wallace had violated the TPO by throwing Georgiana through the doorway, and he was placed under arrest. Believing no other adult was in the home, Poulos then entered Wallace's home to retrieve Georgiana and carried her, along with a jacket that she had retrieved just inside the home, outside the garage.3 Poulos placed Georgiana in Upson's vehicle because Wallace was underarrest for violating the TPO. Both officers testified that Poulos never had any physical contact with Wallace.

The remaining facts are uncontroverted. The officers transported Wallace to the Montgomery County Detention Center's central processing unit, at which time Barr prepared a Statement of Probable Cause and Statement of Charges, which stated that Wallace had “pushed his daughter into the house and shut the door” and that he had violated Section 4.508.1 of the Maryland Family Law Code.4 Wallace was released when a commissioner determined the arrest lacked probable cause.

After his release, Wallace appeared in D.C. Superior Court on December 28 and convinced the judge to vacate the TPO that had been issued to Upson the previous day. Wallace also hired a private investigator who was able to locate Georgiana at the home of Upson's lawyer. Wallace testified that, when he arrived, he found Georgiana in stained toddler clothes, shoeless, and with her bags packed for a “trip.” 5 On January 14, 2008, the charges against Wallace were nolle prossed.

B. Procedural Background

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Poulos, Barr, Sergeant Kevin Burns, the officers' shift supervisor, and Montgomery County on January 28, 2008, asserting violation of their federal and state constitutional rights, as well as numerous state law claims. The following claims against Poulos and Barr went to trial and were ultimately submitted to the jury: (1) a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution; (2) claims for violations of Articles 24 and 26 of the Maryland Constitution; and (3) claims for false arrest/imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault, battery, and intentional interference with custodial relationship.6 While finding in Plaintiffs' favor as to many of the federal and state constitutional claims, the jury declined to hold either of the officers liable for the state law claims of malicious prosecution, assault, and battery.7 The jury awarded Wallace $1 in nominal damages and $250,000 in punitive damages against each officer (or $500,000 total). Additionally, the jury concluded that Georgiana had suffered $3,000 in compensatory damages and awarded $2.5 million in punitive damages against Poulos.

On May 19, 2011, Poulos and Barr moved for a new trial or, in the alternative, for remittitur. The same day, Plaintiffs moved for judgment as a matter of law on the following claims that the jury rejected: (1) assault of Wallace by Poulos and Barr; (2) battery of Wallace by Poulos and Barr; and (3) battery of Georgiana by Poulos. Plaintiffs also moved for equitable relief, requesting that the court expunge Wallace's arrest record stemming from the December 27, 2007, incident. On November 29, 2011, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • Beyond Sys., Inc. v. Kraft Foods, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 12 d1 Agosto d1 2013
    ...and tread gingerly in reviewing them”—the jury verdict as to BSI's lack of bona fides as an ISP must stand. See Wallace v. Poulos, 861 F.Supp.2d 587, 597 (D.Md.2012), citing Lack v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 240 F.3d 255, 259 (4th Cir.2001).5. BSI Has Not Shown Injury–In–Fact, Hence Lacks Stan......
  • Bryan v. Erie Cnty. Office of Children & Youth
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • 22 d4 Março d4 2012
  • Hicks v. Ferreyra
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 28 d5 Janeiro d5 2022
    ...the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases." Wallace v. Poulos , 861 F. Supp. 2d 587, 603 (D. Md. 2012) (quoting State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell , 538 U.S. 408, 418, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 155 L.Ed.2d 585 (2003) ). This ana......
  • Butler v. Windsor
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 22 d4 Outubro d4 2015
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT