Driscoll et al v. McCray
Filing
72
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 10/20/2016. Associated Cases: 8:16-cv-00934-PJM, 1:16-cv-01791-PJM(kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 10/21/16 rs/ch)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
RENEE MCCRAY,
*
*
Plaintiff, pro se
*
*
v.
*
*
JOHN E. DRISCOLL, III
*
ROBERT E. FRAZIER,
*
JANA M. GANTT, LAURA D. HARRIS, *
KIMBERLY LANE, DEENA REYNOLDS, *
AND SAMUEL I. WHITE, P.C.,
*
*
Defendants
*
*
*
*
*
JOHN E. DRISCOLL, III
*
ROBERT E. FRAZIER,
*
JANA M. GANTT, LAURA D. HARRIS, *
KIMBERLY LANE AND
*
DEENA REYNOLDS
*
*
*
Plaintiffs
*
*
v.
*
*
RENEE MCCRAY,
*
*
Defendant, pro se
*
*
Civil No. PJM 16-934
Civil No. PJM 16-1791
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The parties are before the Court on two separate matters. In Civil No. PJM 16-934, Renee
McCray, pro se, has brought a claim against John E. Driscoll, Robert E. Frazier, Jana M. Gantt,
Laura D. Harris, Kimberly Lane, Deena Reynolds, and the law firm that employs them, Samuel
1
I. White, P.C., (“Trustees”), alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(“FDCPA”) 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq (“FDCPA case”). In Civil No. PJM 16-1791, McCray
removed to this Court the foreclosure action against McCray’s property filed by the Trustees in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (“foreclosure case”).
McCray’s FDCPA case, PJM Civil No. 16-934, has, earlier this month, been significantly
impacted by an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, McCray v. Federal
Home Loan Bank, et. al., 2016 WL 5864509 (4th Cir. Oct. 7, 2016). In that opinion, the appellate
court reversed a holding by Judge Russell of this court who dismissed a lawsuit brought by
McCray against the very same defendants she has sued here, alleging the very same violations of
the FDCPA she alleges here. Because that case has now been remanded to Judge Russell’s court
to determine whether the White Firm and the Substitute Trustees “as debt collectors, violated the
FDCPA,” this Court, with the consent of Judge Russell, will direct the clerk to REASSIGN this
case to Judge Russell.
As for the removed state foreclosure proceeding – which was not part of the McCray case
recently decided by the Fourth Circuit – the Court recognizes that the claims therein may be “so
related to claims within . . . [its] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or
controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. 28 U.S.C. §1367 (a). Accordingly, rather
than this Court deciding whether or not supplemental jurisdiction should by exercised over the
removed foreclosure action, both this Court and Judge Russell have agreed that it would be better
for Judge Russell to make that determination.
Accordingly, the Court will also direct the clerk to REASSIGN the case of Driscoll, et.al.
v. McCray, the foreclosure action, for him to decide.
2
A separate order will ISSUE.
/s/________________
PETER J. MESSITTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
October 20, 2016
3
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?