Wiley v. Staples, Inc.

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 12/20/2017. (c/m 12/20/2017 tds, Deputy Clerk)

,.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND'
Southern

lUll GEe20 A 1\: ~ I

Division

*
VERLA WILEY,

*
Plaintiff,

Case No.: G.H1-17-2187

*
v.

*
OFFICE SUPERSTORE EAST, LLC,
(d/b/a "STAI'LES")

*

Dcfcndant.'

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plainti 1'1'
Verla Wiley brings this I'm
("'Staples")
rcmoved

.1'('

action against Oftice Supcrstorc

alleging "Breach of Oral Agrcement'"
Plaintiffs

and "Injurious

Harm:'

action from thc Circuit Court for Princc Gcorgc's

East. LI.C

ECF NO.2. DelCndant

County. Maryland

to this

Court on August 4. 2017. ECF NO.1. and Iiled a Partial Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 11. and
Answer.

ECF NO.1 O. on August

16. 2017. Following

Dcfendant's

Partial Motion to Dismiss.

Plaintif1' tiled a Motion for Rcmand. ECF No. 15. Motion to Strikc Dclendant's
No. 18. Motion for a Hearing. ECF No. 19. Motion lor Additional
Motion for Entry ofDej~lult.

ECF No. 24. No hearing is ncccssary.

For thc reasons that f(lilow. Dclendant's

Pleadings.

Answcr. Eel'
ECF No. 21. and

Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2(16).

Partial Motion to Dismiss is granted and Plaintitrs

Motions are denicd.

I Defendant states that Office Superstore East, LLC is 11m\' the proper party Defendant for this action. ECF No. 25.

I.

BACKGIWlJNJ)2
Plaintiff. a residcnt of Ox on Ilill. Maryland.

placed an ordcr with Staples'

Copy & Print Centcr on October 7. 2016. requesting

Maryland

States Supreme Court Petition formatted

in accordance

45 bound copies of a United

with the Supreme Court's

II. 2016. ECF NO.2 at 33 On October

requirements

by October

PlaintitTwith

bound copies that did not meet the Supreme Court's

Court Clerk's

otllee: however.

the Clerk's

ortice provided

briefs. Id On November

tile correctly-formatted

requirements

2016. Id at 4-5. Plaintiff received

the completcd

of her December

and chargcd

rejected by the Supreme
to

30. 2016. Plaintiff placed a second order Il)r 45

which DetCndant committed

in!lJrllled Delendant

provided

Plaintiff with a 60-day extension

copies of the brief with Defendant.

still did not comply with the Supreme Court's

liling

II. 2016. Delendant

for the order. Id at 4. The copies were subsequently

Plaintiff $561.00

Oxon Ilili.

to complete

order on December

filing requirements.

by Deccmbcr

6. 2016: howewr.

2.

thc order

Id at 5. While Plaintiff

9. 2016 tiling deadline at the Supreme Court. Delendant

was unable to provide Plaintiff with properly-f<JrI11atted copies of her brief. and. as a result.
Plaintiff missed her liling deadline.
properly

complete
Plaintiff

Plaintiff alleges that because of Defendant's

U.S. Suprcme Court case is lost forever." Id. at 10.

her order. her "$3.000.000

tiled her two count complaint

in the Circuit Court !l)J' Prince Gcorge's

Maryland

on June 22. 2017. bringing claims of "Breach of Oral Agrcement"

"Injurious

Harm" (Count II) and requesting

$1.000.000

in punitive damages.

failure to

$1.500.000

Defendant

in compensatory

County.

(Count I) and

damagcs and

rceeived a copy of the Complaint

on .Iuly

J

8. 2017

and tiled a notice of removal on August 4. 2017. ECI' NO.1 .

.2

Unless stated otherwise. the facts are taken from the Complaint and assumed to be true. Only facts necessary to

adjudicate
.
1

the subject motions

Pin cites to documents

filed

arc reproduced
on the Court's

herein .
electronic

filing

system (CM/ECF)

by that system.

2

refer to the page numhers

generated

II.

DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Proccdurc

12(b)(6). the Court may dismiss a complaint

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be grantcd. To survivc a motion to dismiss. "a
complaint

must contain sufticient
on its face .... Ashcrofi

plausible

7irolllh~p. 550 U.S. 544.570

factual matter. accepted as true .. to state a claim to rcliefthat

\". II/ha/. 556 U.S. 662. 678 (2009) (citing Hell All. Corp. \".

(2007)). A claim is plausible when ..the plaintilTpleads

content that allows the Court to draw the reasonable
misconduct

alleged."

In evaluating
factual allegations
facts

1 in

435.440

infercnce that the defendant

lilctual

is liable for the

Id.
the sufticiency

contained

of Plaintiffs

in the complaint:'

claims. the Court "must accept as true all of the
and "draw all reasonable

inferences

I II'om

those

lilvor of the plainti ff:' F:.1. dll Ponl de Nelllollrs & Co. ", Kolon Indlls .. In,. .. 637 F,3d
(4th Cir. 201 I) (citations

and internal quotation

complaint

must contain more than "legal conclusions.

assertions

devoid of further factual enhancement:'

marks omitted).

However. the

clements of a cause of action. and bare

Nelllel Che,'rolel, LId \'.

COI7.I'lI111erq/lilirs.colII,Inc .. 591 F.3d 250. 255 (4th Cir. 2009). The Court should not grant a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief unless "it is clear that no relief could be
granted under any set of lilcts that could be proved consistent

Primle Placelllel1/ Parlners II

P.

with the allegations:'

(jl:' 1111'.

Parker. 247 F.3d 543. 548 (4th Cir. 2001) (citing II../. Inc. \".

Nor'/nreslel'l1 Hell Tel. Co .. 492 U.S. 229, 249-50 (1989)).
Although
of contract.

Plaintiffs

"Injurious

is

harm:'

Complaint

includes two claims. it is. in essence. a claim lil!' breach

asserted in Count II. is not a viable cause of action. and Count II

sets forth the same facts and allegations

as ji)lJnd in Count I. See ECF NO.2 at 13 (asserting

3

that

"Defendant

allegcdly

breached the oral agrccment

and failed to delivcr the final product ...

by

the due date that was mutually agreed upon" as the basis for Count II). Thus. Count II will be
dismissed.

Morcover.

contract claims. Saml
only recovcrable

law. punitive damagcs

arc not available

fllr breach of

ilL Ltd .. 710 F.2d 1027, 1033 (4th Cir. 1983). Punitive damages are

I'.

in tort actions and. even thcn. only if malice is shown. See AII/. Laui/dry

Machil/erl' . II/dustries
or that Dcfendant
Plaintiff:

under Maryland

I'.

flol'lli/. 412 A.2d 407. 416 (Md. 1980). As Plaintiff has not allel!cd a tort
~

aeted with malice. Plaintiffs
in both hcr Response

20. and Motion to Strike Defendant's

claim fill' punitive damages

in Opposition

to Defendant's

is also dismissed.

Motion to Dismiss. ECF No.

Answer. ECF No. 18. argues that these filings were not

timely. ECF No. 20-1 at 12; ECF No. 18 at 2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
a defendant

who did not answer a complaint

other defenses

or objections

before removal must provide an answcr or present

within thc longer of twenty-one

days aller receiving the initial

or seven days aftcr the notice of removal is filed. See Fed. R. Civ. 1'. 81 (c)(2).

pleading
Defcndant

received the complaint

2017. having until August
Defendant's

Defendant's

Delendant's

11.2017

filings on August

Because Dc!endant's
consider

81(c).

on July 18.2017

to file an answer or dispositive

timc to tile a motion to dismiss has passed. the Court may only

filing upon a motion fill' an extension

I'.

motion. Therefore.

16. 2017 were not timely:

failure to timely file was attributed

see also Tholl/psol/

and filed a notice of removal on August 4.

to excusable

of time and a showing that
neglect. See Fed. R. Civ. 1'. 6(b);

£.1. DuPol/t de Nell/ours & Co .. 76 F.3d 530. 533 (4th Cir.1996)

(relevant

-l While Defendant tiled the motion to dismiss and answer \\'ithin thirty days of receiving the summons, as permitted
by the state court. Defendant removed the matter to f'Cderal court and is therefore subject to time limits imposed by
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. lu response to Plainlitrs Motion for Entry of Default. ECF No. 14. Dd"eudant
now argues that its Ans\vcr was timely because it was not properly served. ECF No. 25. Because Defendant raises
this argument approximately three months after Plaintiff moved to strike Defendant's Ans\ver. ECF No. 18. and the
Court will deny Plaintiffs Motions on other grounds. the Court will not consider Defendant's service of process

arguments herein.

4

circumstances for determining excusable neglect are thc danger of prcjudice. length of dclay and
potential impact. the reason for the delay. whether the delay was within thc reasonable control of
the movant. and whether the movant acted in good Illith). Defendant's dclay was minimal and
Plaintiff does not appear to have been prejudiced as a result. but. without a motion and
explanation lor the delay. the Court cannot conclude that Delendant's late liling was attributable
to excusable neglect. I lowever. because Plaintiffs claim of "Injurious Ilarm" simply does not
exist. and punitive damages in contract claims are not recognized under Maryland law. the Court
will dismiss these claims sua spoil/e. See Erilille CO. S.A.

I'.

Johllsoll. 440 F.3d 648. oS5 n. 10

(4th Cir. 20(6) ("Where the Illce of a complaint plainly fails to state a claim for relie!: a district
court has 'no discretion' but to dismiss it.") (internal citation omitted): see a/so LOl11hord
Securities

/IIC. \'.

711Ol11as White & Co ..
F.

/IIC .•

903 r.supp. 895. 900 (D. Md. 1995) (a court's

authority to dismiss a case sua spollte is inherent within the court's power to manage its own
affairs and achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases). Furthcr. the Court will not
strike Defendant's answcr as it was filed belore any request lill"default had been lilcd. See. e.g.
Ullited States

1'.

Mraz. 274 r. Supp. 2d 750. 756 (D. Md. 2(03) (denying motion lor dellllllt

judgment alier defendant Illiled to lile a timcly answer bccausc the Fourth Circuit has a strong
prefcrence for resolving cases on their merits and doing so would not prejudice plaintill). For the
same reason. Plaintiffs Motion for Entry of Default. lOCI'No. 24. is denied.
B. Plaintiff's Motion for Remand to State Court, ECF No. 15
Defendant liIed a notice of removal on August 4. 2017. asserting that thc Court has
original jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.c. ~ 1332. Eel' No. I.
Specifically. Defendant provides that Plaintiff is a Maryland residcnt. Defendant is a corporation
organized under the laws of Massachusetts wilh its principal place of business in Massachusetts.

5

and Plaintiff's Complaint seeks damages in excess 01'$75.000. ECF No. I at I. As such.
Defendant establishes that diversity jurisdiction cxists in this casc.; Plaintiff tiled a Motion to
Remand on September 5.2017. principally arguing that Defendant's removal was improper
bccause it was not granted by an order trom the Court or the initial state court. Eel' No. 15 at J.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.c.

* 1332(a)( I). "district courts shall have original jurisdiction

of all

civil actions where the mailer in controversy exceeds the sum or value 01'$75.000. exclusive of
interest and costs. and is between citizens of different States'" Moreover. "a corporation shall be
deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and the
State or toreign state where it has its principal place of business'" 28 U.S.c.

* t332(c)(I).

Procedurally. to remove an action from a State eourt. a defendant "shall tile in the district court
of the United States for the district and division within such action is pending a notice of removal
signed pursuant to Rule II of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and containing a short and
plain statement of the grounds for removal. together with a copy of all process. pleadings. and
orders served upon such defendant or defendants in such action'" 28 U.S.c. 1446(a). Thcre is no
requirement that. aller filing the removal notice. a defendant must obtain a court ordcr belore
removal is valid: rather. a defendant merely needs to give notice to the adverse parties and tile a
copy of the removal notice with the clerk of the state court. 28 U.S.c. 1446(d). Oncc complete.

~ In its initial filings with the Court. Defendant stated that the proper party Defendant was "Staples the Office
Superstore East. Inc.:' not "Staples Inc:' as named in the Complaint. ECF No. I. Thereafter. Defendant. in its
Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint. stated that Staples the Olliee Superstore East. Inc. "is incorporated in lklawarc.
with its headquarters in Massachusetts. and is registered to conduct business in Mary'land," ECF NO.1 0 at 2. On
December 13.2017. in its Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Entry of Default. Defendant now states that "Staples
the Otlice Superstore East. Inc:' was converted from a corporation 10 a limited liability company named "Otlicc
Superstore East. LLC on or about Scplember 12. 2017. Eel' No. 25 aI t n. I. Olliee Superstore East. LLC is
organized under the lm.•.. of the Stale of Dehl\\I'are \•... its principal place of business located in Framingham,
s
ith
Massachusetts, It/. ~ 3. \Vhile it is clear that Defendant is not a Maryland resident for diversity jurisdiction purposes,
see .James G, Dm';s COl1sl. Corp. \', Erie Ins. Exchange, 953 F. Supp. 2<1 607, 610 (D. t\1d. 2(13) (noting thai a
corporation is deemed a resident of allY state in which it is incorporated or has its principal place of business),
Defendant's inconsistent statements create confusion that could easily be addressed 11tIdDefendant clected to
respond to any ofPlaintin"s motions tiled prior to its Motion for Entry of Default.

6

!d. Defendant

the state court ..shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded".
followed these procedures.

and removal is therefore

proper. Plaintiffs

motion to remand is

denied.
C. Plaintiffs
Throughout

Motion for a Hearing, ECr No. 19

her filings with the Court. Plainti ITsuggests that Defendant
conduct. See. e.g. ECF No. 19 at 2. In addition.

action through fraudulent

Judge .lames Bredar. Chief.ludge
fraudulent

conduct.

concerns.

it appears that Plaintiffs

Order Concerning

removing

allegations

of the removal process and federal civil procedure.

each and every concern raised by PlaintilTherein
Standing

Removal.

PlaintifTstates

lightly: however.

upon

stem from her lack of
The Court will not address
that the Court"s

ECF NO.9. which. among other things. requests that the

that Defendant

forged or li'audulently

issued. In

provided the Court with infimnation

required by the Standing

Order prior to the Clerk.s office docketing

August 7. 2017. Coupled

with the lack ofa specific court order removing

as

the Standing Order on
the case. Plaintiff

foul play.
The Standing Order lilr Removal provides boilerplate

removed

that

into the alleged

but will address her allegation

party explain the basis for removal. was somehow

support of this allegation.

suspects

Plainti ITrequestcd

ECr: No. 23. The Court docs not take such allegations

review of Plaintiffs
understanding

of this District. initiate an investigation

removed this

to this Court. repeating

Rules ofCivilProcedurc

the procedural

requirements

instructions

to litigants in matters

already set filrth in the Federal

and the Local Rules. The Court has directed the Clerk.s office to issue

the Standing Order upon receiving

a notice of removal. and the standard

tiJrlnat and electronic

signature allows the Court to remind the parties of the removal requirements
efficient manner. The Standing

Order in no way grants or approves

7

in a timely and

a notice of removal:

rather. it

provides the plaintiff with an opportunity

to move f(lr remand back to state court iI' warranted.

precisely what Plaintiff has now attempted
with the requested
Defendant

infiJnnation

to do. That Defendant

was able to provide the Court

before the actual Standing Order was filed merely suggests that

was aware of the procedural

need to schedule a hearing to investigate

requirements
Plaintiffs

for rcmoval. As such. the Court docs not
concerns.

I). Plaintiffs Motion for Additional Pleadings, ECF No. 21
Finally. Plaintiff requests an opportunity
Defendant's

portia/motion

to dismiss.

to tile additional

based. in part. on

pleadings

lOCI" No. 21 at 1. Because Defendant submitted an

Answer to Plainti ff s breach of contract claim. there is no need tor additional
time. Plaintiffs

remaining

will have an opportunity
Plaintiffs
III.

Motion

t(l[

pleadings

at this

claim will not be decided at this stage of the litigation. and Plaintiff
to continue to pursue this action following

Additional

Pleadings

discovery.

As such.

is denied.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing

granted. and Plaintiffs

Dated: DecemberZo.

reasons.

Defendant's

Partial Motion to Dismiss.

lOCI' No. 11. shall be

motions shall be denied. A separate Order follows.

20 17

~

GEORGE.I. HAZEL
United States District Judge

8