Jarvis v. Leggett

DEREK JARVIS v. ISIAH LEGGETT, et al.

No. 145

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2019

June 3, 2020

Circuit Court for Montgomery County

Case No: 453925V

UNREPORTED

Fader, CJ, Graeff, Moylan, Charles E., Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

PER CURIAM

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

In September 2018, Derek Jarvis, appellant, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County against Isiah Leggett, the Montgomery County Executive's Office, and the Office of Human Rights. Though unnamed in the caption of Mr. Jarvis's complaint, Montgomery County, Maryland was also identified as a defendant in the body of the complaint. The complaint set forth four causes of action against the defendants, including two counts for violation of § 20-304 of the State Government Article, a count for "negligent training and supervision," and a count for "failure to intervene by county defendant."

In his complaint, Mr. Jarvis alleged that in September of 2017, two "management level employee[s]" of the County Executive's Office engaged in "threatening behavior via phone communication" and "refused to allow [him] to file a [c]omplaint of discrimination." His complaint further alleged that a "[h]ispanic staff member" of the Office of Human Rights refused to take his "complaint of discrimination" against a business and became "belligerent" and "hostile" with him.

The defendants, in response, filed a motion to dismiss asserting, in pertinent part, that several of the defendants were not subject to suit and that Mr. Jarvis had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. While the motion to dismiss was pending, Mr. Jarvis filed a motion to transfer venue contending, in pertinent part, that the defendants and county attorneys who represented them had "a direct relationship with the court" which created a "conflict of interest" and the "appearance of impropriety." The motion to transfer venue was denied without a hearing. At the conclusion of a February 26, 2019 hearing onthe defendants' motion to dismiss, the court dismissed Mr. Jarvis' complaint with prejudice.

On appeal, Mr. Jarvis raises the following questions for our review, which we consolidate and rephrase for clarity:¹

1. Did the trial court err in dismissing with prejudice Mr. Jarvis's complaint as to Defendant, Isiah Leggett?

2. Did the trial court err in dismissing each count of Mr. Jarvis's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted?

3. Did the trial court err in denying Mr. Jarvis's Motion to Transfer Venue?

For the following reasons, we shall affirm the decision of the circuit court.

DISCUSSION

I. Separate Document Requirement

Though the circuit court made an oral ruling at the motions hearing on February 26, 2019, the court failed to comply with Maryland Rule 2-601(a)(1) which mandates that "[e]ach judgment shall be set forth on a separate document." The record does not contain a separate document reflecting that the court had dismissed Mr. Jarvis's complaint with prejudice. There is, however, a docket entry entered by the clerk on February 26, 2019 which reads: "Court Dismisses Case with Prejudice" and "Court (Rupp, J.) grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice."

The separate document requirement may, however, be waived "where a technical application of the separate document requirement would only result in unnecessary delay." URS Corporation v. Fort Myer Construction Corporation, 452 Md. 48, 67 (2017). Moreover, strict compliance with the separate document rule can be "waived, at least where ... the trial court intended the docket entries made by the court clerk to be a final judgment and where no party objected to the absence of a separate document after the appeal was noted." Id. at 68.

In the present appeal, no party has objected to the absence of a separate document reflecting the court's ruling and the clerk's docket entry accurately sets forth the substance of the court's oral ruling and judgment. Accordingly, we deem the lack of a separate document to be waived.

II. Motion to Dismiss

Under Maryland Rule 2-322(b)(2), a defendant may seek a dismissal of a complaint if it fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." This Court, in reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss, "must determine whether the Complaint, on its face, discloses a legally sufficient cause of action." Scarbrough v. Transplant Res. Ctr. of Maryland, 242 Md. App. 453, 472 (2019) (citation omitted). In doing so, we "presume the truth of all well-pleaded facts in the Complaint, along with any reasonable inferences derived therefrom in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs." Id. We will hold that the grant of a motion to dismiss is proper where "the alleged facts and permissible inferences, so viewed, would, if proven, nonetheless fail to afford relief to the plaintiff." Id.

Dismissal as to Isiah Leggett

On appeal, Mr. Jarvis asserts that the circuit court erred in dismissing his complaint against Isiah Leggett, the former Montgomery County executive, with prejudice. As grounds for the dismissal of Mr. Leggett, the court concluded that there was "nothing...contained within the pleadings that would allow any inference that Isiah Leggett was personally involved in any of these activities" alleged in the complaint.

Upon review of the complaint, we do not find, nor does Mr. Jarvis direct this Court to facts alleging specific actions of wrongdoing by Mr. Leggett. While we recognize that a plaintiff need not "state minutely all the circumstances which may conduce to prove the general charge," Simms v. Constantine, 113 Md. App. 291, 296 (1997), Mr. Jarvis was required to describe the claim with "such reasonable accuracy as will show what is at issue between the parties." Richard F. Kline, Inc. v. Shook Excavating & Hauling, Inc., 165 Md. App. 262, 275 (2005).

The only specific acts referenced in Mr. Jarvis's complaint related to the actions of two "management level employees" at the Montgomery County Executive's Office and a single employee at the Office of Human Rights. The complaint alleged that these individuals refused to accept a complaint of discrimination from Mr. Jarvis and that they used offensive and racially disparaging language towards him. The complaint did not specify any involvement by Mr. Leggett with these acts. On this ground alone, it was proper for the court to dismiss the complaint as to Isiah Leggett.

Dismissal of the Four Counts with Prejudice

On appeal, Mr. Jarvis asserts that the court erred in dismissing his complaint because the complaint "stated valid and cognizable claims." Though Mr. Jarvis acknowledges that his complaint was divided "into four claims for relief," his brief does not specify what those claims were, nor does it argue with particularity why each claim was "valid and cognizable." We, therefore, decline to consider on appeal whether the court erred in dismissing each count of Mr. Jarvis's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Maryland Rule 8-504(a)(5) (stating that an appellate brief shall contain "[a]rgument in support of the party's position."); Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 552 (1999) (stating that "arguments not presented in a brief or not presented with particularity will not be considered on appeal").

Even were we to exercise review, we do not discern any error by the court in determining that the four counts asserted by Mr. Jarvis failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The first two counts of Mr. Jarvis's complaint alleged that the defendants violated § 20-304 of the State Government Article. This article provides that:

[a]n owner or operator of a place of public accommodation or an agent or employee of the owner or operator may not refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or

...