Curcio v. Board of Child Care of the United Methodist Church, Inc. et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 11 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 8/21/2015. (hmls, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF

101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
[phone]
[phone] FAX

J. FREDERICK MOTZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

August 21, 2015
MEMO TO COUNSEL RE: Thomas L. Curcio v. Board of Child Care of the United
Methodist Church, Inc., et al.
Civil No. JFM-15-1156
Dear Counsel:
I have reviewed the memoranda submitted in connection with plaintiff’s motion to
dismiss the counterclaim. The motion (document 11) is granted in part and denied in part.
Specifically, it is granted in all respects except to the extent that the counterclaim asserts that
plaintiff did not report information about the tax consequences of the deferred compensation
plans and a consultant’s recommendation for a compensation study to the Board of Directors.
As a matter of equity, defendants’ position has appeal. However, the motion is directed
to whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction, and that it is not in the interest of either side
to inject an issue into the case that substantially affects the scope of the litigation and may be
reversed on appeal.
Defendants are, of course, free to pursue the claims asserted in the counterclaim that are
being dismissed in state court. Accordingly, I have concluded that the best course to follow is to
ask defendants to advise me on or before October 9, 2015 whether they have instituted in state
court a case against plaintiff asserting the claims that I am dismissing and whether they agree to
pay the amounts allegedly due under the SRBP into an escrow account. If defendants (or one of
them) do file such a state court action, and if they agree to pay the amounts allegedly due under
the SRBP into an escrow account, I will administratively close this case, subject to being
reopened upon notice of either party within 30 days of the conclusion of the state court litigation.
I believe that this might be the best way to accommodate the competing interests that you have
articulated.
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion and docketed
as an order.
Very truly yours,
/s/
J. Frederick Motz
United States District Judge