Madison et al v. Harford County, Maryland et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 7 Motion to Stay; and dismissing 1 Complaint. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 8/15/12. (apls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ANTHONY MADISON, et al.

*

Plaintiffs
vs.

*

HARFORD COUNTY, et al.

*

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-12-1120

*

Defendants
*

*

*

*
*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: CASE STATUS
The instant lawsuit was filed following the Plaintiffs'
voluntary dismissal of Madison v. Harford County, MJG-10-197.
Following the filing of the Complaint herein, Defendants filed
the Motion to Require Payment of Costs and to Stay This
Proceeding Until Reasonable Costs Are Awarded and Paid [Document
7].

As stated in the Joint Status Report [Document 13]:
1. At the Court’s suggestion, the parties
have agreed that this case will commence
where Case. No. MJG 10-CV-00197 was at the
time of the filing of Document 65 on May 9,
2011.
2. The plaintiff reserves the right to seek
leave of Court to vary from the terms of
paragraphs one herein, and the defense
reserves the right to oppose any such
motion.
3. The defense requests that parties agree
that this case (MJG-12-CV-1120) be
dismissed and case MJG-10-00197 be re-opened
in order to keep the record and docket clear
for the parties and the court.

4. The plaintiff respectfully objects and
notes that this procedure may have a wide
variety of unintended consequences under the
rules of this court. Moreover, the plaintiff
respectfully suggests that in the absence of
any compelling reasons to follow the defense
suggestion, judicial economy and
administrative ease weigh in favor of the
current case posture.
5. The parties have further agreed that
defense counsel shall continue to provide
plaintiff’s counsel with all discovery,
correspondence and other writings of any
type which passed between the parties or
counsel in connection with Case. No. MJG 10CV-00197.
Upon consideration of the parties' respective positions,
and after a conference with counsel, the Court will proceed with
the instant case as if there had been no voluntary dismissal of
MJG-10-197 mutatis mutandis.
Accordingly:
1.

The Complaint [Document 1] is dismissed.

2.

Plaintiffs shall, by August 20, 2012 file an
Amended Complaint that is identical to Document
51 in MJG-10-197.
a.

Plaintiffs may, by August 24, 2012 file a
document voluntarily withdrawing any
allegations and/or claims made in the
aforesaid Amended Complaint.

b.

The Court shall, after the filing of said
Amended Complaint, issue an Order herein
that is consistent with [Documents 53 and
63] in MJG-10-197.

c.

Defendants may file a motion seeking
2

dismissal of some or all claims in the
Amended Complaint by September 17, 2012.
3.

Plaintiff may file a motion seeking leave to
amend the Amended Complaint by September 3 to add
Harford County, Maryland as a Defendant.
a.

Defendants shall respond by September 24,
2012.

b.

Plaintiffs may reply by October 8, 2012.

4.

The Motion to Require Payment of Costs and to
Stay This Proceeding Until Reasonable Costs are
Awarded and Paid [Document 7] is DENIED.

5.

Defense counsel shall continue to provide
plaintiff’s counsel with all discovery,
correspondence and other writings of any type
which passed between the parties or counsel in
connection with MJG 10-CV-197.

6.

The case shall proceed pursuant to the Scheduling
Order issued herewith.

SO ORDERED, this Wednesday, August 15, 2012.

/s/__________
Marvin J. Garbis
United States District Judge

3