Bretemps v. Town of Brentwood, Maryland et al
Filing
22
LETTER OPINION to Counsel. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 11/28/2012. (aos, Deputy Clerk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
(410) 962-0782
(410) 962-2698 FAX
J. FREDERICK MOTZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
November 28, 2012
MEMO TO COUNSEL RE: Verron Bretemps v. Town of Brentwood, Maryland, et al.
Civil No. JFM-12-2638
Dear Counsel:
I have reviewed the memoranda submitted in connection with the Town of Brentwood’s
motion to dismiss counts V and VI and alternative motion to bifurcate count V, Risik’s and
Montgomery-Wright’s motion to dismiss count VI, and plaintiff’s motion to waive the notice
requirements of Section 5-304. The Town of Brentwood’s motion is granted in part and denied
in part; Risik and Montgomery-Wright’s motion is granted; and plaintiff’s motion is denied.
In count VI plaintiff asserts a claim for alleged violations of rights protected by the
Maryland constitution. As plaintiff acknowledges, he failed to meet the 180 day notice
requirement of the Local Government Tort Claims Act. He has failed to show good cause for his
failure to do so. He was represented by counsel long before the 180-day period expired.
Although plaintiff blames his lawyer for not filing a timely notice, plaintiff chose his lawyer and,
vis-à-vis defendants, is responsible for any mistake his lawyer made.
Because the claim asserted in count VI is barred because of plaintiff’s failure to meet the
notice requirement of Section 5-304 of the local government tort claims act, count VI must be
dismissed.
It is also highly questionable whether plaintiff has asserted any viable claim against the
Town of Brentwood in count V. It appears from plaintiff’s allegations that his real complaint is
that Montgomery-Wright and Risik conspired with one another to commit wrongs against him
for their own personal interest. It is not clear how their alleged actions further any policy of the
Town of Brentwood. However, because Montgomery-Wright was the mayor of the Town of
Brentwood and Risik was its chief of police, it may be that together they formulated a municipal
policy for which the Town of Brentwood is liable. Therefore, their motion to dismiss count V is
denied, without prejudice to their raising anew the same issues they have raised in their motion
to dismiss by way of a motion for summary judgment at the conclusion of discovery.
It appears that because plaintiff’s claims against the Town of Brentwood are based
entirely upon the official positions held by Montgomery-Wright and Risik, the scope of
discovery will not be expanded by the non-dismissal of count V. 1 Accordingly, the Town of
Brentwood’s alternative motion to bifurcate count V is also denied. Again, this ruling is without
prejudice to the Town of Brentwood renewing its motion at a later stage of these proceedings if
it concludes that there is good reason for bifurcation of the claim asserted in count V at trial.
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion and docketed
as an order.
Very truly yours,
/s/
J. Frederick Motz
United States District Judge
1
I note that a claim for negligent hiring is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Therefore, plaintiff may not conduct any
discovery about whether the Town of Brentwood was negligent in not investigating Risik’s background before hiring him.
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?