Williams v. Baltimore County Government et al

Filing 68

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 7/18/2017. (c/m)(hmls, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND * LAMAR A. WILLIAMS, * Plaintiff * v. * BALTIMORE COUNTY GOVERNMENT et al., CIVIL NO. JKB-17-0066 * * Defendants * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM Pending before the Court in this case claiming employment discrimination and retaliation are the following motions:  ECF No. 18—Motion to Dismiss, by Defendant Vincent J. Gardina  ECF No. 44—Motion to Dismiss Amended Statement of Claims, by Gardina  ECF No. 60—Motion for Leave to File a Surreply, by Plaintiff Lamar A. Williams  ECF No. 61—Motion for Leave of Mandate to Mitigate Damages, by Williams, and  ECF No. 63—Motion to Strike, by Defendant Baltimore County (the “County”) Because Williams’s amended complaint (ECF No. 13; see Order 4, Mar. 3, 2017, ECF No. 15) superseded his original complaint (ECF No. 1), Gardina’s first motion to dismiss (ECF No. 18) is moot. And since no reply was filed by Gardina on his later motion to dismiss, Williams’s motion for leave to file a surreply (ECF No. 60) is also moot. Williams’s motion for leave of Court for him to be excused from the duty to mitigate his damages (ECF No. 61) is without merit and will be denied. The motion to dismiss only relates to Gardina inasmuch as the other Defendant, Baltimore County, has answered (ECF No. 43). Gardina’s motion rests upon a narrow, and valid, point: He may not be held individually liable under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is the stated basis for Williams’s suit. See Baird v. Rose, 192 F.3d 462, 471-72 (4th Cir. 1999) (principle applied to both discrimination and retaliation claims under ADA). For that reason, Gardina’s motion will be granted, and the case will proceed against Baltimore County alone. In the remaining pending motion, Baltimore County has moved to strike allegations that Williams made in his Motion for Leave of Mandate to Mitigate Damages. Williams has filed no opposition to the motion, and the Court finds it meritorious. Consequently, it will be granted, and the Clerk will be directed to seal ECF Nos. 61 and 63. A separate order will enter in accordance with these rulings. DATED this 18th day of July, 2017. BY THE COURT: _____________/s/_____________________ James K. Bredar United States District Judge 2

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?