Meade Communities, LLC v. Washington
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 6/26/12. (c/m 6/26/12 mps, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
MEADE COMMUNITIES, LLC,
*
PLAINTIFF
*
V.
CIVIL ACTION NO.: RDB-11-1526
*
CASSANDRA WASHINGTON,
*
DEFENDANT.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Meade Communities, LLC (“Meade”) is a Maryland limited liability
corporation that operates family housing at Fort Meade, Maryland under the Department of
Defense Military Housing Privatization Initiative, 10 U.S.C. §§ 2871, et seq. Defendant
Cassandra Washington (“Washington”), who is defending this action pro se, currently resides
in a house owned and operated by Meade, but since at least August 2010 ceased making
regular rent payments as required under the Residential Lease Agreement executed between
the parties. See Lease Agmt., ECF No. 1-1. On June 6, 2011, Meade instituted this lawsuit
against Washington seeking eviction and rent owed as a result of Meade’s failure to abide by
the terms of her lease. See Compl., ECF No. 1. On June 23, 2011, Washington answered
Meade’s Complaint and essentially acknowledged that she is in breach of the Lease
Agreement. See Answer, ECF No. 5. This Court has jurisdiction over this dispute under 28
U.S.C. § 1331 insofar as the lease agreement at issue involves a home located at Fort Meade,
a military installation under exclusive federal subject matter jurisdiction. Discovery has now
concluded, and Plaintiff Meade filed the pending Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No.
1
8. This Court has reviewed the record, as well as the pleadings and exhibits, and finds that
no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2011). For the reasons that follow,
Meade’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court “shall grant
summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A
material fact is one that “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A genuine issue over a material fact
exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party.” Id. In considering a motion for summary judgment, a judge=s function is
limited to determining whether sufficient evidence exists on a claimed factual dispute to
warrant submission of the matter to a jury for resolution at trial. Id. at 249.
In undertaking this inquiry, this Court must consider the facts and all reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct.
2658, 2677 (U.S. 2009) (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007)). However, this
Court must also abide by its affirmative obligation to prevent factually unsupported claims
and defenses from going to trial. Drewitt v. Pratt, 999 F.2d 774, 778-79 (4th Cir. 1993). If the
evidence presented by the nonmoving party is merely colorable, or is not significantly
probative, summary judgment must be granted. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50. On the other
hand, a party opposing summary judgment must “do more than simply show that there is
some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
2
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986); see also In re Apex Express Corp., 190 F.3d 624, 633 (4th Cir.
1999). This Court has previously explained that a “party cannot create a genuine dispute of
material fact through mere speculation or compilation of inferences.” Shin v. Shalala, 166 F.
Supp. 2d 373, 375 (D. Md. 2001) (citations omitted).
ANALYSIS
As previously mentioned, in answering the Complaint, Washington conceded that she
is in breach of her lease with Plaintiff Meade. Specifically, on June 22, 2011, Washington
stated:
I’m requesting the United States District Court and Meade Communities for
some additional time to pay the amount owed. . . . Before the month of July
ends I plan to pay all of Jun[e] payment and part of July. I have been in a
hardship every [sic] since my husband and I have been separated. I’m
presently working at the Internal Revenue Service for 17 years; I’m also
required by my code of ethic[s] to make sure that my responsibilities are keep
[sic] up to standards. Please allow me the time to catch up with the amount I
owe.
Washington Answer, ECF No. 5.
Notwithstanding Washington’s intention to “catch up,” at the time of the filing of
Meade’s motion for summary judgment, she had not made any rent payments in over ten
months. See Meade Mem. and attachments, ECF Nos. 8-1 & 8-3. She currently owes
$17,400.00 in unpaid rent and late fees. In addition to the unpaid rent, Meade also seeks and
Order from this Court directing Washington to immediately vacate her home at Fort Meade.
Washington has not responded to the motion for summary judgment—indeed, after filing
her Answer, Washington has not filed a single document, responsive or otherwise. After
reviewing the pleadings, memoranda, and supporting documentation, this Court concludes
that Washington is indeed in breach of her lease agreement, owes $17,400.00 to Meade, and
3
is subject to eviction. As the facts are undisputed, there are no genuine issues of material
fact for trial, and this Court concludes that Plaintiff Meade is entitled to summary judgment.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff Meade’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 8) is GRANTED, Defendant Washington is indebted to Meade in the amount of
$17,400.00, and Washington must immediately vacate the property located at 3073 A Moon
Court, Fort Meade, Maryland 20755.
Dated: June 26, 2012
/s/___________________
Richard D. Bennett
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?