Davis et al v. Martin et al
ORDER denying as moot Maryland State Defendants' 22 Motion to Strike portions of the complaint; granting Maryland State Defendants' 23 Motion to Dismiss; granting Lifeline, Inc., Lifeline, L.L.C., Randall Martin, Theresa Martin' s 26 Motion to Dismiss counts III and IV of the complaint but Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended complaint; granting Lifeline, Inc., Lifeline, L.L.C., Randall Martin, Theresa Marti's 30 Motion for Leave to File; granting Lifeline, Inc., Lifeline, L.L.C., Randall Martin, Theresa Martin's 30 Amended Motion to Strike impertinent and prejudicial allegations of the complaint. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 8/7/2015. (dass, Deputy Clerk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
(410) 962-2698 FAX
J. FREDERICK MOTZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
August 7, 2015
MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL RE: David Davis v. Randall Martine
Civil No. JFM-15-1746
I have reviewed the memoranda submitted in connection with the pending motions. My
rulings on the motions are as follows.
1. Maryland state defendants’ motion to dismiss. The motion (document 23) is granted.
The various state defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity. Moreover, although technically
I need not (and cannot) decide the issue, it appears that plaintiff has failed to state any viable
claim against the Maryland state defendants because those defendants owed no duty to plaintiffs.
2. The motion to dismiss counts III and IV of the complaint (document 26) is granted
but plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended complaint on or before August 25, 2015.
3. The Maryland state defendants’ motion to strike portions of the complaint. The
motion (document 22) is denied as moot.
4. The amended motion to strike impertinent and prejudicial allegations of the complaint.
The motion (document 30) is granted. Because the complaint is not in compliance with Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8 in that it does not “contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claims that the plaintiff
is entitled to relief” and because I am dismissing the Maryland state defendants, plaintiffs are
directed to file an amended complaint on or before August 25, 2015.
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion and docketed
as an order.
Very truly yours,
J. Frederick Motz
United States District Judge
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?