PM Terminals, Inc. v. Mundi et al

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER removing December 13, 2012 bench trial from the Court's calendar and directing parties to brief an issue by October 19, 2012 as stated herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge William Connelly on 09/27/2012. (nk, Chambers)(Copies mailed to pro se Defendants)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
____________________________________
PM TERMINALS, INC.
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
HARJINDER S. MUNDI, et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. WGC-10-3588

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
On June 18, 2012 this case was referred to the undersigned for all further proceedings.
See ECF No. 34. By the Order of June 27, 2012, the undersigned established a briefing schedule
for dispositive motions and scheduled a one day bench trial for December 13, 2012. See ECF
No. 35. On July 27, 2012 Plaintiff, PM Terminals, Inc., (“PM Terminals”) filed a motion for
summary judgment. See ECF No. 36. On August 2, 2012 the Clerk’s Office mailed a Rule
12/561 letter to Defendants Harjinder S. Mundi, Laura R. Mundi and Kuldip Singh, since these
three Defendants are unrepresented. See ECF No. 37. None of the Defendants filed a response
in opposition by August 13, 2012. The motion therefore became ripe for resolution.
On September 24, 2012 after reviewing PM Terminals’ motion for summary judgment,
the undersigned realized, upon reviewing (a) the Clerk’s correspondence of January 20, 2012
regarding Local Rule 101.22 to Defendants Harjinder S. Mundi, Laura R. Mundi and Kuldip
Singh (ECF No. 27), (b) PM Terminals’ Status Report of February 3, 2012 (ECF No. 29), (c) the
correspondence of February 7, 2012 from Robert McGill, Esquire to Judge Messitte (ECF No.
1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 concerns motions to dismiss. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure concerns
motions for summary judgment.
2

Regarding the withdrawal of appearance of counsel.

1

30), (d) PM Terminals’ Status Report of June 15, 2012 (ECF No. 32) and (e) the Status Report of
Kuldip Singh and Lashkar Singh of June 15, 2012 (ECF No. 33), that pro se Defendants
Harjinder S. Mundi and Laura R. Mundi never consented to having a Magistrate Judge conduct
further proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of final judgment. Moreover, the
undersigned noticed some confusion with regard to Defendant Kuldip Singh.

The docket

reflected that Kuldip Singh was unrepresented. See ECF No. 27. However, in the Status Report
of June 15, 2012, Mr. McGill represented that he is counsel for Lashkar Singh and for Kuldip
Singh. See ECF No. 33. The undersigned therefore reviewed the Notice of Appearance filed by
Mr. McGill on November 22, 2011. The Line Substituting Counsel states in pertinent part,
Please enter the appearance of Richard M. McGill, Esquire, as
attorney for the above Defendant, Lashkar Singh, in the abovecaptioned matter, and strike the appearance of Brett Weiss, Esquire
. . . as attorney[] representing Defendant herein.
ECF No. 25.
The undersigned directed a member of his staff to contact Mr. McGill’s office. Mr.
McGill’s office verified that Mr. McGill represents both Lashkar Singh and Kuldip Singh. Mr.
McGill’s office was directed to file a notice of appearance on behalf of Defendant Kuldip Singh.
His office complied. See ECF No. 38.
Although the issue of Kuldip Singh’s representation is resolved, the undersigned cannot
resolve the fact that pro se Defendants Harjinder S. Mundi and Laura R. Mundi did not consent
to a Magistrate Judge. The undersigned therefore lacks authority to conduct further proceedings
as the presiding judge in this case, including trial and entry of final judgment, for the two nonconsenting Defendants. The undersigned therefore will request Judge Messitte to direct the
undersigned to prepare a Report and Recommendation with regard to Defendants Harjinder S.
Mundi and Laura R. Mundi.
2

Having read PM Terminals’ motion for summary judgment, as well as Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 3), Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (ECF No. 5), Plaintiff’s
Corrected Response in Opposition (ECF No. 6), Defendant’s Reply (ECF No. 7), Plaintiff’s
Surreply (ECF No. 9) and Defendants’ Response to Surreply (ECF No. 10), although Defendants
subsequently moved to withdraw the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16), which Judge Messitte
granted in the Order of September 1, 2011 (ECF No. 18), the issue of PM Terminals’ right to sue
needs to be briefed before the undersigned addresses PM Terminals’ motion for summary
judgment. Specifically, the parties must address the issue of PM Terminals’ right to sue in light
of Maryland Code, Corporations & Associations Article § 7-301 (Failure to register or qualify - Maintenance of suit) and Tri-County Unlimited, Inc. v. Kids First Swim School, Inc., 191 Md.
App. 613, 993 A.2d 146 (2010).
Based on the above the Court hereby,
1.

REMOVES from the Court’s calendar the one day bench trial scheduled for

December 13, 2012;
2.

ORDERS the parties to brief the issue of PM Terminals’ right to sue not later

than October 19, 2012; and
3.

DIRECTS the Clerk to mail a copy of this Memorandum & Order to pro se

Defendants Harjinder S. Mundi and Laura R. Mundi.

September 27, 2012
Date

______________/s/____________________
WILLIAM CONNELLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3