Lampton et al v. Household Finance Corporation III et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Alexander Williams, Jr on 9/15/2011. (rank, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
*
*
Plaintiffs,
*
* Civil Case No.: RWT 11cv1364
v.
*
*
Household Finance Corporation, et al., *
*
Defendants.
*
*
***
Debra Lampton, et al.,

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On March 23, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a fifteen-count Complaint against the Defendants in
the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. ECF No. 2. The Complaint was filed by
Shakyamunire Shiva Arati, an attorney who then had been a member of the Maryland bar for
only a little more than three-weeks.1 Beneath Arati’s signature on the Complaint was a reference
to “The Glenmore Law Firm.”
Defendants filed a Notice of Removal on May 19, 2011 alleging that this Court has
original subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 and supplemental subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ related state law claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ECF No. 1. Defendants claimed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(b) and (c), that all claims asserted in Plaintiffs’ Complaint could be removed. Id. Upon
removal of the case, the Clerk of Court sent a letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel on May 20, 2011
indicating that counsel was not a member in good standing of this Court’s bar. ECF No. 7. The
letter indicated that counsel had fourteen days from the date of the letter to notify the chambers
1

See Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland, http://www.courts.state.md.us/cpf/attylist.html (search
“Last Name” for “Arati”).

of the presiding judge whether counsel was seeking admission or if another attorney would be
entering an appearance. Id. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not reply to the letter, nor did any other
attorney associated with “The Glenmore Law Firm.”
On May 26, 2011, Defendant The Fisher Law Group, filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 9. On May 26, 2011,
Defendants Household Finance Corporation III, A Mortgage Two Corporation, and HSBC
Group filed a separate Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6). ECF No. 12. Neither Mr. Arati nor any other attorney
associated with “The Glenmore Law Firm” filed a timely opposition to either of Defendants’
Motions to Dismiss.
On July 8, 2011 the Clerk of Court sent Plaintiffs’ counsel a letter informing them that
Defendants filed two motions to dismiss and that Plaintiffs had a right to file a response to
Defendants’ motions within seventeen days from the date of the letter. ECF No. 15. Again,
neither Mr. Arati nor any other attorney associated with “The Glenmore Law Firm” responded
within the time period specified in the Clerk’s notification.
On July 29, 2011, Tawana Shephard,2 also apparently associated with “The Glenmore
Law Firm,” filed a Motion to Extend Time to File Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to

2

Tawana Shephard, Esquire is a member of the bar of this Court, having been admitted on July 16, 2010. At
the time of her admission to the bar of this Court, she based her admission on membership in the Bar of the
District of Columbia, and her principal office was said to be located at 1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 300,
Washington, D.C. 20006. According to records of the District of Columbia bar, Ms. Shephard no longer has an
address on file. See DC Bar, Find a Member, http://www.dcbar.org/find_a_member/index.cfm (search “Last
Name” for “Shephard” and search “First Name” for “Tawana”). She has entered an appearance in multiple
cases in this Court utilizing the Beltsville, Maryland address of “The Glenmore Law Firm.” Local
Rule 701.1(a) requires that a person be, and continuously remain, a member of the bar of the highest court of
this State, or the District of Columbia, where his or her principal office is located. Local Rule 701.1(d) also
precludes membership in the bar of this Court by any person maintaining any office in Maryland, unless that
person is a member of the Maryland bar. According to records of the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of
Maryland, Ms. Shephard is not a member of the Maryland bar. See Client Protection Fund of the Bar of
Maryland, http://www.courts.state.md.us/cpf/attylist.html (search “Last Name” for “Shephard” and search
“First Name” for “Tawana”).

2

Dismiss. ECF No. 16. In her motion, Ms. Shepard indicated that an extension of time was
needed because Mr. Arati had left the firm abruptly after the case was removed to this Court. Id.
She asked for additional time so that a new attorney could become familiar with the case. Id.
Defendant The Fisher Law Group filed an Opposition to the Motion for Extension of Time on
August 2, 2011. ECF No. 17. In its Opposition, The Fisher Law Group appended copies of
unanswered letters sent to Mr. Arati, including one invoking the “safe harbor” provisions of
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.3
It is apparent from an examination of the file in this case that virtually nothing has been
done for the Plaintiffs by either Mr. Arati or any other attorney associated with “The Glenmore
Law Firm” since the time the matter was removed to this Court. In an Opinion authored for the
Court of Appeals of Maryland by Associate Judge Glenn Harrell, Attorney Grievance Comm’n of
Maryland v. Kimmel & Silverman, 405 Md. 647, 955 A.2d 269 (2008), a strong reminder was
given to the members of the Maryland bar of the supervisory responsibilities of law firms for the
actions of attorneys employed by them.

Rule 5.1 of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of

Professional Conduct provides as follows:
(a) A partner in a law firm, and a lawyer who is individually or
together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial
authority in a law firm, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that
the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(2) provides that
A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and
must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The
motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to
the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is
withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within
another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing
party the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred for the motion.

FED. R. CIV. PRO. 11(c)(2).

3

lawyers in the firm conform to the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of
Professional Conduct;
(b) A lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another
lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other
lawyer conforms to the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional
Conduct.
MD. LAWYERS’ RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT 5.1.
In his opinion, Judge Harrell emphasized the importance of this Rule:
Our Rules require that a firm's executive lawyers design and
implement supervisory procedures that anticipate the ethical
demands specific to the practice they lead. Proper design of a
firm's internal policies and procedures is accomplished when the
partners and managers in the firm are responsive to circumstances
that indicate a heightened need for more elaborate supervision. To
meet this obligation, the Rules contemplate that partners and
managing attorneys must adapt the level of supervision to a given
attorney's experience and relative to the assigned tasks and the
firm's nature and culture.
Kimmel & Silverman, 955 A.2d at 284 (quotation omitted). Judge Harrell stressed “[w]hether an
employee’s ethical breaches are due to the employee’s sub-standard performance or the
deliberate circumvention of standard procedures, proper supervision must include mechanisms to
determine whether the delegated tasks are being performed.” Id. at 290. This case presents a
new twist on the circumstances before the Court of Appeals of Maryland in Kimmell &
Silverman.

4

Here, a serious question exists as to the nature and even the existence of “The Glenmore
Law Firm,” the law firm with which Mr. Arati was allegedly associated.4 According to the
records of both this Court and the Court of Appeals of Maryland, there is not one lawyer licensed
in the State of Maryland with the name “Glenmore,” nor is anybody with that name listed as
being a member of the District of Columbia bar or of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia bar.

See Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland,

http://www.courts.state.md.us/cpf/attylist.html (search “Last Name” for “Glenmore”); DC Bar,
Find a Member, http://www.dcbar.org/find_a_member/index.cfm (search “Last Name” for
“Glenmore”);

United

States

District

Court

for

the

District

of

Columbia,

Case

Management/Electronic Case Filing, https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl (last visited
September 14, 2011). This, of course, brings to mind the provisions of Rule 7.5 of the Maryland
Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct which provides, in comment one, that a law firm may
not be designated by the name of non-lawyers. See MD. LAWYERS’ RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT
7.5, cmt. 1.
According to on-line records of the Maryland State Department of Assessments and
Taxation, “The Glenmore Law Firm, LLC” was established on July 23, 2010 and its Articles of
Organization signed on its behalf by “Newton Gaynor, Director of Business Development,” who

4

“The Glenmore Law Firm” maintains a webpage, but it does not provide a name of any attorney associated
with the firm. See http://glenmorelaw.com/ (last visited Sep. 14, 2011). The webpage does not give an address
for “The Glenmore Law Firm.” See id. A web search for “The Glenmore Law Firm” indicates, however, that
the only address of “The Glenmore Law Firm” is 5010 Sunnyside Ave., #201, Beltsville, MD 20705. See
http://www.google.com/ (search “The Glenmore Law Firm”). On her Motion for an Extension of Time,
Ms. Shephard lists this Maryland address as the location of “The Glenmore Law Firm.” ECF No. 16. At the
time of Ms. Shephard’s application to this bar, she listed the address of “The Glenmore Law Firm” as
1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20006. A web search for the Washington, D.C.
address listed by Ms. Shephard indicates that the address is occupied by Phase Legal, LLC, a legal staffing and
project management company. See Phase Legal, LLC, http://www.phaselegal.com/ (last visited Sep. 14, 2011).
No record of an address for “The Glenmore Law Firm” can be found other than the Beltsville address.

5

was also designated as the Resident Agent.5 See Maryland Department of Assessments and
Taxation, http://sdatcert3.resiusa.org/UCC-Charter/CharterSearch_f.aspx (search “Name” for
“Glenmore”; then follow the “Amendments” hyperlink for “The Glenmore Law Firm, LLC”;
then follow the “View Document” hyperlink for “Articles of Organization”). Article II of the
Articles of Organization stated that “the purpose of the company is to provide legal services and
ancillary services related thereto. As such, the Glenmore Law Firm, LLC is a professional
limited liability company.” Id. According to records of the Court of Appeals of Maryland as
well as the District of Columbia bar, Newton Gaynor is not admitted to the bar of either
jurisdiction.

See

Client

Protection

Fund

of

the

Bar

http://www.courts.state.md.us/cpf/attylist.html (search “Last Name”
search “First

Name”

for

“Newton”);

DC

Bar,

of

Maryland,

for “Gaynor” and

Find

a

Member,

http://www.dcbar.org/find_a_member/index.cfm (search “Last Name” for “Gaynor” and search
“First Name” for “Newton”). On April 1, 2011, a resolution was filed with the Maryland State
Department of Assessments and Taxation changing the resident agent from Mr. Gaynor to
S. Shiva

Arati.

See

Maryland

Department

of

Assessments

and

Taxation,

http://sdatcert3.resiusa.org/UCC-Charter/CharterSearch_f.aspx (search “Name” for “Glenmore”;
then follow the “Amendments” hyperlink for “The Glenmore Law Firm, LLC”; then follow the
“View Document” hyperlink for “Resolution”).
It is difficult, at best, to determine who, if anyone, is a principal or partner in “The
Glenmore Law Firm” and the status of Tawana Shephard is unclear. The names of other
attorneys who appear to have been associated with the firm come up, but their status is murky at

5

Mr. Gaynor also claims to be the President and CEO of “Glenmore Development” and “Glenmore Realty.”
See Plaxo Profile, Newton Gaynor, http://www.plaxo.com/directory/profile/30065554781/f8f9eac0/Newton/
Gaynor (last visited Sep. 14, 2011). Mr. Gaynor lists his business address as 5010 Sunnyside Ave., #201,
Beltsville, MD 20705. See id.

6

best. For example, Andrew Blackman entered an appearance on behalf of “The Glenmore Law
Firm” in Burson, et al. v. Amaya, et al., Case No. 333736V in the Circuit Court for Montgomery
County.

See

Maryland

Judiciary

Case

Search,

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us

/inquiry/processDisclaimer.jis (search “Last Name” for “Blackman” and search “First Name” for
“Andrew”; then follow the “333736V” hyperlink under “Case Number”). There is, however, no
person with the name of Andrew Blackman who is presently a member of the bar either of this
Court or of the Maryland bar.

See Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland,

http://www.courts.state.md.us/cpf/attylist.html (search “Last Name” for “Blackman” and search
“First Name” for “Andrew”).
Serious and substantial issues have been raised by the Defendants in this case as to the
sufficiency of the allegations of the Complaint, and Defendant The Fisher Law Group has given
a specific safe harbor notice to the Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. Arati.

The Motion filed by

Ms. Shephard requesting an extension of time within which to respond to the Defendants’
Motions to Dismiss was filed after the time for response had already expired. Her Motion does
not address the “excusable neglect” standard of Rule 6(b)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Moreover, there are very troubling questions raised by the Defendants’ Motions to
Dismiss as well as the safe harbor notification given by Defendant The Fisher Law Group to the
Plaintiffs. The status of “The Glenmore Law Firm” is questionable, at best, and it is not clear
whether there are any attorney principals of the firm and, if so, whether they have met their
supervisory responsibilities.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Time to File Opposition to Defendants’
Motions to Dismiss, ECF No. 16, will be denied without prejudice, and Ms. Shephard, and any
other principals of “The Glenmore Law Firm,” will be directed to file with this Court, within

7

fifteen days of the date of the accompanying Order, a status report containing the following
information:
1. A complete description of the attorney principals of “The Glenmore Law Firm,”
including their identity and dates of admission to the bar of each jurisdiction in which
they may be admitted.
2. A description of any changes in the composition of the principals of the firm from
July 2, 2010 to the present.
3. The identity of the principal(s) of the firm who, at the time of the filing of this action
in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland, was in charge of the work
of Mr. Arati.
4. A complete list of addresses of all the offices maintained at any time by “The
Glenmore Law Firm” for the practice of law in Maryland or any other jurisdiction.
5. A complete description of the reasons, if any, for disregarding repeated notifications
from this Court with respect to the need to enter the appearance of an attorney
admitted to the bar of this Court as well as notification from the Clerk of this Court as
to the need to file oppositions to the Motions to Dismiss filed by the Defendants.
6. A complete description of how Tawana Shephard qualifies for continued admission to
the bar of this Court in light of her establishment of an office in the State of
Maryland.
7. A complete description of the steps taken in response to the Rule 11 safe harbor
notice given by Defendant The Fisher Law Group.

8

8. In the event that no such evaluation has taken place, a description of the evaluation
that has now been undertaken and a decision with respect to whether the Plaintiffs
wish to continue with this case.
9. A statement as to whether the Plaintiffs wish to renew their Motion for an extension
of time to respond to the Motions to Dismiss and to continue with this litigation.
A separate Order follows.

September 15, 2011
Date

/s/
By Alexander Williams Jr. for
Roger W. Titus
United States District Judge

9