Hodge et al v. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER directing Harold H. Hodge and Chante'N. Hodge to retain counsel on behalf of Beersheva Sharah Hodge by April 20, 2015. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 3/26/2015. (c/m & certified copies mailed to parents 3/26/15)(kw2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division
BATHSHEBA NOVELLA HODGE, et al.,
PLAINTIFFS,

*
*

v.

*

SIX FLAGS ENTERTAINMENT
CORPORATION, et al.,

Case No.: PWG-14-3427

*
*

*

DEFENDANTS.
*
*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiffs Bathsheba Novella Hodge, Beersheva Sharah Hodge (hereinafter sometimes
referred to as “Beersheva”), Tynishia Mackall, and Starr Mackall filed suit, pro se, against
Defendant Six Flags Entertainment Corporation and nine other defendants. Compl., ECF No. 1.
Plaintiffs allege that, on or about June 8, 2014, they visited Six Flags America in Upper
Marlboro, Maryland, where they “were denied equal enjoyment of the theme park recreational
centers” when they “were indirectly and directly told to leave the Six Flag’s [sic] Looney Tunes
facility without justification[]” while “other people of other races were allowed to remain
enjoying the facility.” Id. ¶¶ 4–5, 7. The October 30, 2014 Complaint states that Beersheva was
sixteen years old at the time Plaintiffs filed suit, making her a minor at that time and at the time
of the incident. Id. at 1.
Pursuant to Rule 17(c), I appointed counsel to represent Beersheva Sharah Hodge. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2) (“The court must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another
appropriate order—to protect a minor . . . who is unrepresented in an action.”). ECF Nos. 4 & 5.
Counsel moved to withdraw, asserting that continuing to represent Beersheva would put her at

risk of violating Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and the Rules of Professional Conduct. ECF No. 8; see Loc.
R. 704 (applying “the Rules of Professional Conduct as they have been adopted by the Maryland
Court of Appeals”). I granted counsel’s motion. ECF No. 9; see ECF No. 10 (notifying
Beersheva Sharah Hodge of counsel’s withdrawal). Under these circumstances (where counsel
raised ethical concerns about continuing, as well as Rule 11 concerns), appointment of another
pro bono attorney is not reasonable.
The Maryland Rules provide that, “[w]hen a minor is in the sole custody of one of its
parents, that parent has the exclusive right to sue on behalf of the minor for a period of one year
following accrual of the cause of action.” Md. R. 2-202(b). In this case, that period extends
until June 7, 2015. See Compl. ¶ 7. Similarly, as noted, Rule 17(c)(2) requires the Court to take
action to protect the interests of a minor in a case, including appointing a guardian ad litem
(“GAL”). Thus, even if Maryland Rule 2-202 does not dictate a capacity rule in federal court, it
clearly identifies custodial parents as appropriate to bring a claim during this first year. Indeed, a
minor cannot file suit on its own. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b) (capacity to sue determined under
law of individual’s domicile); Md. R. 2-202(b); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) (guardian may sue
on behalf of minor). Thus, given that Rule 17(c)(2) requires the Court to take appropriate action
to protect a minor, it is logical to appoint the custodial parent (or parents). The Court records in
cases filed by Harold H. Hodge Jr. and Chante’ N. Hodge, Beersheva Sharah Hodge’s parents,
show that they have the same address as their minor child.1 Therefore, appointing Beersheva’s
father and/or mother as GAL to protect her interests is in harmony with both state and federal
procedural rules.

1

This Court can take judicial notice of its records. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).
2 

Nonetheless, even though a non-attorney parent can act as GAL and assert a claim on
behalf of a minor child, a non-attorney parent is “not authorized to litigate pro se the claim of his
[or her] minor child[].” Myers v. Loudoun Cnty. Pub. Schs., 418 F.3d 395, 400 (4th Cir. 2005).
Therefore, Beersheva Sharah Hodge’s parents must retain counsel on behalf of their daughter. If
the parent(s) fail to retain counsel on behalf of their minor child, her case may be severed from
the pending suit, stayed, and administratively closed until she reaches majority, at which time
she can proceed on her own. See Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-201 (providing that a
minor is under a legal disability, such that the statute of limitations does not begin run until the
minor reaches majority).
Accordingly, it is this 26th day of March, 2015 ORDERED that:
1. Harold H. Hodge Jr. and Chante’ N. Hodge ARE APPOINTED as guardians ad litem
for their daughter, Plaintiff Beersheva Sharah Hodge, in the above-captioned civil
action for the purposes of protecting her interests as a minor child, without
compensation;
2. A copy of this Order, as well the pleadings filed by Beersheva Sharah Hodge, shall be
mailed, certified mail, by the Clerk’s Office to Harold H. Hodge Jr. and Chante’ N.
Hodge at 1312 Sark Court, P.O. Box 1204, Prince Frederick, Maryland 20678;
3. Harold H. Hodge Jr. and Chante’ N. Hodge ARE DIRECTED to retain counsel on
behalf of Beersheva Sharah Hodge by April 20, 2015. Failure to do so may result in
the severance, staying and administrative closure of the minor’s claims until she
reaches majority.
/S/
Paul W. Grimm
United States District Judge
lyb
3