Sanders et al v. Callender et al

Filing 67

MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Plaintiffs 2/22/18 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 2/22/2018. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
KENNETH SANDERS, et al.
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 17-1721

:
DESIREE CALLENDER, et al.
:
MEMORANDUM
On January 9, 2018, the court issued an order dismissing
some claims and directing Plaintiffs to show cause, by January
30,

why

the

remaining

Towing/Champion

Towing

&

claims

against

Services,

Inc.

Defendant

Marlboro

(“Marlboro

Towing”)

related to the events of June 2015 should not be severed from
Plaintiffs’

42

U.S.C.

§

1983

claim

against

Defendant

Prince

George’s County (“PGC”) related to the events of May 2014.

(ECF

No.

time

59).

When

Plaintiffs

did

not

respond

within

the

allotted, the court entered an Order severing the claims on
Monday, February 5.
Unbeknownst
submitted

a

to

(ECF No. 60).
the

response

to

undersigned,
the

Clerk

Plaintiffs
on

Friday,

had

earlier

February

2

requesting clarification of the court’s January 9 ruling and
additional time to respond.

(ECF No. 66).

With respect to

severance, Plaintiffs’ response states “given the issues raised
by the court[,] severance may be a prudent course.”

(ECF No.

66, at 7).

As Plaintiffs have no objection to severance, the

court will not amend its order of February 5, and the claims are
severed.
Plaintiffs

seek

clarification

as

to

which

claims

dismissed with prejudice and which without prejudice.

are

All the

claims against Deputy Sheriff Brown, Prince George’s County’s
Sheriff’s Department, and Vendor Resource Management, Inc. were
dismissed with prejudice.

The claims against Desiree Callender,

Desiree Callender & Associates, Realtors LLC (“DCAR”) and Gomez
Towing were dismissed without prejudice.

(ECF No. 59).

Prince

George’s County Police Department is not a legal entity capable
of suit, and, therefore, PGC was substituted.

The tort claims

against

The

PGC

were

dismissed

with

prejudice.

claims

for

negligence, false imprisonment, assault and battery, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and a violation of 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against Marlboro Towing were dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiffs also submitted, again, proposed summonses for
Gomez Towing, Desiree Calendar & Associates LLC, and Desiree
Calendar, and have moved to reconsider the dismissal of the
claims against those defendants for failure to serve timely.
Plaintiffs state that they submitted the proposed summonses to
the

Clerk

and

were

treated

rudely

receipt of the signed summonses.

when

they

inquired

about

The proposed summonses, ECF

No. 57, are dated in October, but were not received and filed by
2

the clerk until December 1, 2017.1

The court stated in the

earlier opinion that this action in presenting the summonses to
the clerk was six months after they were put on notice of the
service

of

process

deficiencies,

somewhat inaccurate.

but

that

observation

was

It was not until July that Plaintiffs were

alerted to the potential service deficiencies, and their motion
for default was not denied until August 29, 2017.
29,

the

October
service.

court
10,

issued
asserting

the

show

that

cause,

these

and

they

Defendants

On September
responded
were

evading

Before the court had ruled, Plaintiffs followed up the

following month to present the summonses to the clerk.
the

on

circumstances,

the

court

will

vacate

the

Under

dismissal

and

direct the clerk to issue the summonses for these Defendants.
Plaintiffs may have 45 days to serve them.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

1

Plaintiff states in his affidavit that he submitted them
on November 29.
3