Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: lawsuit

Family of boxer who suffered brain injury files $50M suit

A Baltimore attorney has filed a $50 million against promoters and a ringside physician who allowed his client to continue fighting with a brain injury that has left him in a persistent vegetative state.

collapsed after a professional boxing match in Virginia on Oct. 17, 2015, when he took repeated blows to the back of the head, according to the complaint, filed in the D.C. Superior Court on Wednesday. He was taken to the hospital and had surgery to relieve swelling from bleeding in his brain but has yet to regain consciousness.

Despite complaining to the ringside physician of pain and dizziness, Colon was allowed to continue fighting and the match was not stopped, the complaint states.

The injury occurred, attorney Ari Casper said, in part because professional boxing does not have adequate procedures for evaluation of a boxer presenting symptoms of a head injury. The lawsuit alleges negligence by the doctor and the two promotion companies overseeing the event.

“Boxing has refused to have a protocol in place and what they’re doing is they’re really putting the promotional dollars in front of the boxers’ safety because fans don’t want to pay money to have a fight end early,” said Casper, of The Casper Firm.

The ringside doctor, Richard Ashby, is a Washington-based family physician and a licensed boxing promoter, which Casper said is a conflict of interest.

Other have a national organization overseeing them, according to Casper. Professional boxing delegates regulation to states and the promoters organizing the bouts and though the promoter is required to ensure boxer safety, there is no clear brain injury protocol like the concussion protocol in place with other sports.

The primary goal of the lawsuit is to compensate Colon and his parents, who provide his round-the-clock care in their native Florida. A “parallel goal,” Casper said, is to raise awareness so a similar injury does not happen again.

“To my knowledge, nothing’s been done to alter the way that these fights happen,” he said. “One of the things that we hope comes out of this case is a wake-up call for boxing.”

Casper said Colon’s father found The Casper Firm because of its experience with brain injury cases and willingness to sue large companies on behalf of individuals. In 2013, the firm won a $14 million jury verdict in Virginia against Hyundai for a client with a brain injury.

“What we try to do is, we fight for the little guy and we fight for people who were wronged by these big companies,” he said. “We’re not afraid to take the big companies on.”

Ashby and representatives for Headbanger’s Promotions Inc. and DiBella Entertainment Inc. were not immediately available for comment Wednesday.

The case is Nieves Colon et al. v. Richard Ashby M.D. et al.

Baltimore housing authority wants sexual harassment suit tossed

The Housing Authority of Baltimore City is seeking to dismiss a multimillion dollar federal filed by an employee who worked at Gilmor Homes alleging sexual by a manager over the course of several years.

In a complaint filed earlier this year in in Baltimore, Nadine Lee Young alleged Wade Johnson, a maintenance superintendent, subjected her to persistent sexual abuse and harassment and created a hostile work environment.

Young alleged violations of state and federal civil rights, the state and federal constitutions, as well as negligent hiring and negligent entrustment. The lawsuit alleged the workplace harassment occurred “in the context” of the “widespread sex-for-repairs quid pro quo sexual harassment” which lead to a class in January 2016.

“The practice of covering up sexual harassment by maintenance workers is so widespread that it is a pattern and practice by the Housing Authority, whose officials have repeatedly turned their backs on city residents and on their own employees,” the complaint said. “For years, the Housing Authority of Baltimore City has ignored numerous complaints and repeatedly allowed abusers to maintain their positions of power.”

Young is represented by , a Baltimore solo practitioner, who previously represented a class of women in the sex-for-repairs .

In asking Monday for the case to be dismissed, the housing authority argued that Young’s claims are barred because she did not timely file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission or the local commission, nor did she follow agency protocols for reporting inappropriate workplace conduct. Young’s lawsuit said her harassment occurred between 2012 and early 2016, while harassment must be reported to the relevant bodies within six months, according to the housing authority.

Young said when she first met Johnson he called her “Miss Dimples” and once he became her supervisor would “whisper lewd comments in her ear and ask to take her on dates,” the lawsuit states. She also said Johnson offered to take her and another employee on a cruise and said he “could make wonders happen.”

The agency argued the behavior Young alleges does not rise to the level of offensive conduct required to sustain a claim under federal and state law.

“She does not claim objectively unwelcome conduct that amounts to sexual harassment sufficiently severe to alter her conditions of employment,” the motion to dismiss said.

Young also contended Johnson had a history of sexual harassment at prior jobs but does not indicate how the housing authority would have been aware of that information, according to the motion to dismiss.

Young also did not comply with the Local Government Tort Claims Act, according to the agency.

The case is Nadine Lee Young v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City, 1:17-cv-00713-MDG.

Lord & Taylor claims $112K in costs from White Flint Mall case

White Flint Mall. (File photo)
. (File photo)

LLC is seeking more than $100,000 in costs from the owner of White Flint Mall nearly two years after a jury awarded the department store $31 million in its breach of contract lawsuit.

The stemmed from Lerner Enterprises LLC’s five-year-old plan to redevelop White Flint Mall into an open-air shopping center along Rockville Pike. Lord & Taylor filed suit in July 2013, arguing White Flint breached its contract with the department store by closing the mall without consent.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in February, and Lord & Taylor filed a bill of costs in in early April claiming $112,000. White Flint filed its opposition Wednesday because the court has discretion to deny costs where the case was close and difficult or the costs are unnecessary and excessive.

Lord & Taylor lists court fees for filings and subpoenas, deposition and hearing transcript production for defending on , expert witness expenses and copies.

“Because White Flint refused to agree to even the most basic of facts, Lord & Taylor needed to employ numerous experts, conduct and defend myriad depositions, file and respond to copious motions, and secure the testimony of dozens of witnesses in order to prove their rights were intentionally violated,” the bill of costs claims.

But White Flint alleges it was Lord & Taylor’s strategy that drove the high costs of the proceedings, from the company initially seeking an injunction and then appealing the trial court’s denial to refusing to work with White Flint to conduct discovery “in a reasonable manner” and instead seeking “every document relating to the White Flint Mall, regardless of its relevance.”

“Lord & Taylor’s strategy throughout this litigation was to drag out the proceedings and expand their scope in order to increase its perceived leverage to extract a large ,” the opposition contends.

Lord & Taylor argued at trial White Flint’s breach and fraud cost the company somewhere between $70 and $100 million and sought damages for lost profits during the construction phase of the project. But White Flint countered the jury awarded less than half that amount.

There is no injustice in asking the defendants to pay the costs of litigation, according to Lord & Taylor, because Lerner holds millions of dollars in real property and cannot demonstrate a financial inability to pay. But the defendants argued in their opposition that inability to pay is just one factor for the court to consider in determining whether to award costs.

The case presented novel issues, according to White Flint, including one of first impression stemming from the original injunction claim which reached the 4th Circuit, and many issues were “vigorously contested,” according to White Flint.

The costs also were excessive for “a straightforward action seeking lost profit damages,” according to White Flint.

The case is Lord & Taylor, LLC et al v. White Flint, L.P., 8:13-cv-01912-RWT.

Laurel police officer settles illegal strip search case for $125K

Officer Alfie G. Acol, with the Laurel Police Department, connects his head mounted-point of view video recording system to the docking station that charges and downloads the video from the unit. A Washington, D.C. man filed a lawsuit Thursday, alleging that Alcol performed an illegal and public strip search during a traffic stop. (The Daily Record/Maximilian Franz)
Officer Alfie G. Acol. (The Daily Record/Maximilian Franz)

A Washington, D.C., man has reached a $125,000 in his claiming a Laurel police officer performed an illegal and public during a March 2014 traffic stop.

Allen Sergeant alleged Officer Alfie G. Acol “demanded” Sergeant’s license and registration after pulling him over in front of a CVS. Sergeant compiled but repeatedly asked what he had done wrong, according to the complaint, filed in July 2015 in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt.

Acol became “angry and aggressive,” ordered Sergeant to exit his vehicle and frisked him several times, the lawsuit said. The officer then moved Sergeant so he was in front of the entrance to CVS and performed a strip search that the lawsuit described as “highly intrusive, humiliating, degrading, abusive, terrifying and traumatizing.”

Acol ultimately gave Sergeant a warning for a traffic violation. Sergeant claimed in the lawsuit that he was pulled over because he was black “and driving while wearing his hair in dreadlocks.”

Sergeant filed a complaint with the Laurel Police Department the day after the incident. Three months later, an investigator found Acol “in violation of department policies,” according to the complaint.

But the lawsuit alleges that instead of Acol being fired, he became the face of the Laurel Police Department’s body cameras program and won an award for meritorious service, the complaint said.

Settlement talks were held in early February, according to online court records, and the offer of judgment was accepted Feb. 23. The judgment was entered Monday, according to court records.

“This judgment is a vindication for the unnecessary humiliation that Mr. Sergeant suffered at the hands of the very people who are sworn to protect him,” said Dennis A. Corkery, a senior staff attorney at the Washington Lawyers’ Committee, which represented Sergeant, in a statement. “This judgment should be a cautionary tale for officers who overstep their authority and terrorize the public and an inspiration for those who, like Mr. Sergeant, was courageous in speaking out about his civil rights.”

Sergeant sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and new training protocols to prevent similar incidents in the future.

“A public roadside strip search is a terrifying and illegal tactic of subjugation and humiliation by armed officers against civilians,” said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, which also represented Sergeant. “Its use is often calculated to go unchallenged by victims who may be in a vulnerable position, are not believed, and are without capacity to take on the police and their institutional defenders.”

The case is Allan R. Sergeant v. Alfie G. Acol, et al., 8:15-cv-02233-PWG.

Pasadena man awarded $14.5M in asbestos case

A Baltimore jury has awarded nearly $14.5 million to a former steamfitter who was exposed to for nearly a decade while at work and performing home improvement projects.

William E. Busch Jr., now 68, was involved in several new construction projects where he was in the vicinity of contractors using products containing asbestos and used products himself between 1967 and 1976, according to William G. Minkin, one of Busch’s lawyers.

Busch was diagnosed with in March 2016 and had surgery last summer. Minkin said the Pasadena man’s doctors did not expect him to survive longer than six months to a year after his diagnosis but he responded to treatment and was healthy and active prior to the disease.

Busch now sees a doctor every two months to monitor the mesothelioma tumor; if it begins growing again, there will be no further treatment.

“Essentially, he’s bought himself a little bit of time,” said Minkin, of The Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos PC in Baltimore.

The verdict, returned Thursday, followed a three-week trial in . The jury awarded Busch $10 million in noneconomic damages; $1.25 million in economic damages; and $318,000 in past medical expenses. Busch’s wife was awarded $3 million for loss of consortium. None of the damages are subject to the cap on noneconomic damages since the injuries occurred before the cap existed.

“He and his wife came to court every day for three weeks… (and) they were very relieved and appreciative of the jury and the opportunity to have their case heard,” Minkin said. “They were pleased with the outcome but it’s just money and obviously he would trade it all to have his health.”

Defendants E.L. Stebbings & Co. and Hampshire Industries Inc. settled before trial. The Wallace & Gale Asbestos Trust and Georgia-Pacific LLC went to trial and disputed causation.

Wallace & Gale was one of the contractors at a job site Busch where Busch worked, and Georgia-Pacific manufactured a joint compound containing asbestos he used while renovating his Baltimore home.

Minkin said there was an unusual amount of documentation in the case tying the defendant companies to the job sites and asbestos products and Busch, as a living victim, was able to provide descriptions of products and work conditions.

“A lot of the times we don’t have any documents at all, it’s a little he said, she said,” he said.

Georgia-Pacific and Wallace & Gale filed cross-claims against the two defendants that settled, and the jury found all four companies liable, according to Minkin.

Georgia-Pacific was represented by Michael A. Brown of Miles & Stockbridge PC in Baltimore. Wallace & Gale was represented by Theodore F. Roberts and Scott M. Richmond of Venable LLP in Towson. Defense lawyers did not respond for requests for comment Tuesday.

Got a verdict or settlement you’d like to share? Tell us about it! 

William E. Busch Jr. et al. v. Union Carbide Corp. et al.

Court: Baltimore City Circuit Court

Case No.: 24X16000151

Judge: Shannon Avery

Outcome: Verdict for plaintiffs totaling $14.5 million in damages; defendants Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust and Georgia-Pacific LLC found liable (E.L. Stebbings & Co. and Hampshire Industries Inc. settled with plaintiff, found liable through cross-claims at trial)

Dates:

Event: 1967 to 1976

Suit filed: April 11, 2016

Verdict: Feb. 16, 2017

Plaintiffs’ attorneys: William G. Minkin, Thomas P. Kelly, Demetrios A. Karas, Justin P. Wright of the Law Offices of Peter Angelos in Baltimore

Defendants’ attorneys: Michael A. Brown of Miles & Stockbridge PC in Baltimore for Georgia-Pacific LLC; Theodore F. Roberts and Scott M. Richmond of Venable LLP in Towson for Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust

Count: Negligence, strict liability

Mosby appeals immunity ruling in defamation suit, seeks stay

Baltimore City Stateís Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby addresses the media July 27 in west Baltimore, with a mural depicting Freddie Gray behind her, after charges were dropped against the three remaining officers charged in connection with Grayís death. (Maximilian Franz/The Daily Record)
Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby addresses the media July 27 in west Baltimore, with a mural depicting behind her, after charges were dropped against the three remaining officers charged in connection with Gray’s death. (Maximilian Franz/The Daily Record)

Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby is seeking a stay of trial proceedings in the civil cases pending against her while she appeals a federal judge’s ruling that she is not immune from their claims, according to online court filings.

The cases, filed by five of the Baltimore Police Department officers charged in connection with the arrest and death of Freddie Gray, are pending in  and also claim malicious prosecution, invasion of privacy and Fourth Amendment violations.

Claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of process, conspiracy and constitutional violations involving the grand jury that charged the officers were dismissed last month by Senior U.S. District Judge Marvin J. Garbis.

In that ruling, Garbis declined to extend absolute or qualified to Mosby on the surviving claims, and her to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, docketed Monday, will focus on that issue.

Mosby is likely to succeed on the merits, according her motion to stay the trial proceedings, because she was acting as a prosecutor when she initiated and pursued the criminal cases, shielding her from civil liability.

She also claims she will suffer irreparable harm if the cases are not stayed because she will be required to submit responsive pleadings, “participate in extensive, burdensome and intrusive discovery,” and “prepare for and appear at trial.”

Discovery in the cases has not yet commenced, according to the motion, and there will be no harm to the plaintiffs in staying the matter while the issue of Mosby’s immunity is appealed. U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Mark Coulson informed the litigants on Friday that discovery would take place in the next 90 days but noted that the appeal was expected.

Mosby contemplates appeal on immunity issue in civil suits

‘She walked on the edge, but I am going to give her the benefit of the doubt,' one criminal defense lawyer says of Baltimore City State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby, seen at a press conference earlier this month, pursuing charges against six police officers in connection with the death of Freddie Gray. But another lawyer says Officer Edward Nero's acquittal shows Mosby ‘is a prosecutor who is bent on promoting herself rather than the city.' (Maximilian Franz/The Daily Record)
Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby (File photo)

A federal magistrate has ordered the discovery process in civil suits against Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby brought by officers charged in connection with the death of to move forward despite Mosby’s intention to seek a stay while she appeals rulings on her .

U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Mark Coulson on Friday informed the parties that written discovery will take place in the next 90 days followed by depositions but noted Mosby “anticipates filing a motion to stay all proceedings to pursue an interlocutory on the issues of total immunity, qualified immunity, and statutory immunity,” according to online court filings.

Baltimore City Sheriff Maj. Samuel Cogen, also named in the lawsuits, does not expect to join Mosby’s motion, according to Coulson.

Mosby argued that she was immune to the officers’ constitutional claims because she was acting as a prosecutor throughout the relevant time period but Senior U.S. District Judge Marvin J. Garbis ruled the officers’ plausibly refuted her argument. He noted evidence may later show Mosby is entitled to immunity.

To appeal Garbis’ order, Mosby first must petition the District Court to allow an interlocutory appeal. Then, within 10 days of the motion being granted, she must seek permission from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The District Court proceeding is not automatically stayed by a successful petition in the appellate court.

Mosby is facing three consolidated lawsuits filed by five of the officers charged in connection with the arrest and death of Gray in 2015. Claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of process, conspiracy and constitutional violations involving the grand jury that charged the officers were dismissed last month by Garbis.

Allegations of , malicious prosecution, invasion of privacy and Fourth Amendment violations survived the motion to dismiss and the cases were referred to Coulson for discovery.

The cases are Nero et al. v. Mosby et al., 1:16cv01288; Rice v. Mosby et al., 1:16cv01304; White et al. v. Mosby et al., 1:16cv02662.

Bethesda firm settles debt-collection lawsuit for $105K

Phillip Robinson of Consumer Law Center LLC. (File)
Phillip Robinson of Consumer Law Center LLC. (File)

A Bethesda debt-collection law firm will pay $105,000 in total statutory damages to approximately 400 Marylanders as a part of a class-action for violations of the Fair Practices Act.

U.S. District Judge Ellen L. Hollander granted preliminary approval for the settlement against Protas, Spivok & Collins LLC on Jan. 19. A hearing to finalize the settlement is scheduled for September.

The firm collected debts for its client Funding LLC, which was not a licensed collection agency in Maryland, after those debts were declared void in 2013, according to attorney Phillip R. Robinson.

Robinson, of the Consumer Law Center LLC in Silver Spring, was part of a team that won a $38.6 million jury verdict against LVNV last year on behalf of a nearly 1,600-member class. LVNV has appealed that decision.

After obtaining the judgment, attorneys filed FDCPA cases against Protas, Spivok & Collins and other collections law firms. The other cases are still pending.

“The big issue here is if you’re a debt collector, you need to make sure what your client’s asking you to do is correct, that the debt actually can be collected,” Robinson said Friday.

The involved state and federal debt collection claims, and the federal law does not require knowledge that a debt is void, according to Robinson, but the complaint does allege facts that could have put the firm on notice.

The $105,000 settlement will provide the approximately 400 class members with a gross settlement amount of $262.50 each, according to court documents. The class members will also be entitled to recover funds that were collected from them in the state court action against LVNV.

Robinson said there are still thousands of debts on the books that have been voided, and part of the goal of the lawsuits is to have the judgments wiped so they are not referred to collections agencies or affecting people’s credit.

Class members in the federal suit will be notified of the settlement within 45 days of the court’s preliminary approval and given the opportunity to exclude themselves from the class or object.

Protas, Spivok & Collins is represented by James Dickerman of Eccleston and Wolf P.C. in Hanover. Dickerman was not immediately available for comment Friday.

Got a verdict or settlement? Let us know about it!

Amy Jernigan & William Bonilla et al. v. Protas, Spivok & Collins LLC

Court: 

Case No.: 1:16cv03058

Judge: Ellen L. Hollander

Outcome: Settlement for plaintiffs of $105,000

Dates:

Event: 2007 to May 2016

Suit filed: July 20, 2016

Settlement: Jan. 19, 2017

Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Scott C. Borison of Legg Law Firm LLP in Frederick and Phillip Robinson of Consumer Law Center LLC in Silver Spring

Defendant’s attorney: James Dickerman of Eccleston and Wolf P.C. in Hanover

Count: Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Mediterranean restaurant cleared in trademark suit brought by competitor

A federal jury in Greenbelt has found a Mediterranean restaurant did not infringe on the of a competitor, ending nearly three years of between the businesses.

Rockville-based Cava Group Inc., which operates restaurants throughout Maryland and across the country, filed suit against Mezeh-Annapolis LLC, which operates as Mezeh Mediterranean Grill, claiming trademark infringement, trade dress infringement and unfair competition.

The complaint claimed Mezeh, a Virginia-based chain that opened its first restaurant in Annapolis in 2013 and now has six locations in Maryland and Virginia, was creating confusion through its name and the appearance of its restaurants. U.S. District Judge George J. Hazel dismissed the trade dress claim last year.

Sean T. Morris, Mezeh’s lawyer, said he argued to the jury during the three-day trial that Cava Group had built its brand around “Cava” and that Mezeh’s entrance into the market did not confuse customers.

“We have argued from the time this case was filed that Cava was Cava and Mezeh was Mezeh,” said Morris, of the Morris Law Firm LLC in Bethesda. “No one is confused or likely to be confused, and the jury agreed with that.”

The jury deliberated for approximately 90 minutes on Jan. 19 before returning a verdict in Mezeh’s favor, according to Morris.

“It’s been a long road but it’s gratifying when the system works,” he said.

Morris said his clients look forward to continue expanding now that the case has concluded.

“Being involved in litigation like this at the start of your company is very difficult and it makes it very difficult to grow so we are very thankful to have it behind us,” he said.

Cava Group was represented by Rockville solo practitioner William David Day and Frederick solo practitioner Matthew Scott Johnston. Day and Johnston could not be reached for comment.

Got a verdict or ? Tell us about it!

Cavamezze Grille LLC v. Mezeh-Annapolis LLC

Court: in Greenbelt

Case No.: 8:14cv00355

Judge: George J. Hazel

Proceeding: Jury trial

Outcome: Verdict in favor of defendant

Dates:

Incident: Spring 2013

Suit filed: Feb. 5, 2014

Verdict: Jan. 19, 2017

Plaintiff’s Attorneys: Rockville solo practitioner William David Day and Frederick solo practitioner Matthew Scott Johnston

Defendant’s Attorneys: Sean Morris of the Morris Law Firm LLC in Bethesda

Claims: Trademark infringement, unfair competition

Jury awards $200K in excessive force lawsuit against Morgan State

A Baltimore City Circuit Court jury deliberated for 90 minutes before awarding a former Morgan State University security guard $200,000 after she was assaulted and pepper-sprayed by a campus security guard during a dispute in October 2012. (File photo)
A jury deliberated for 90 minutes before awarding a former University security guard $200,000 after she was assaulted and pepper-sprayed by a campus security guard during a dispute in October 2012. (File photo)

A Baltimore city jury returned a $200,000 verdict Tuesday against Morgan State University and a former campus police officer who assaulted and pepper-sprayed a campus security guard during a dispute.

Angel Watkins was in a relationship with Department of Police and Public Safety Officer Anthony Brown in October 2012 when he asked her to meet him on the campus and demanded she delete personal photos he had sent to her cellphone, according to Peter T. McDowell, Watkins’ lawyer.

When Watkins refused, Brown grabbed her phone and used his Mace on her before pushing her to the ground and handcuffing her, McDowell said. Brown also threatened her with criminal charges, which were filed but eventually dropped.

Watkins was ultimately fired from her position, which had allowed her to enroll at the school tuition-free.

“She was on a path to improve herself and when she got fired she was devastated,” said McDowell, a Towson solo practitioner. “She never went back to school; she’s still a security guard.”

The Baltimore City Circuit Court jury deliberated for approximately 90 minutes at the end of a three-day trial before finding in Watkins’ favor on battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and violation of the Maryland Declaration of Rights counts against Brown and the school. The jury also found Morgan State liable for negligent retention because prior incidents involving Brown put the school on notice of his behavior.

Supervisors for the Department of Police and Public Safety testified the previous incidents were handled appropriately, McDowell said. In 2010, Brown sprayed his Mace under the door of an office that had students inside and received a verbal reprimand and training. In 2011, he accused a student of trespassing and used force to detain him, resulting in a three-day suspension he was scheduled to serve in December 2012.

Morgan State officials argued they could not have foreseen Brown’s actions at issue in Watkins’ but McDowell said it was “obvious” the jury did not agree.

“This matter is the result of an unfortunate incident that grew out of an apparent personal relationship between two MSU employees,” university spokesman Clinton R. Coleman said in an emailed statement. “The university remains committed to providing a safe living, learning and working environment but we will continue to hold officers accountable for their actions within the framework of the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights.”

Brown testified was not in a relationship with Watkins and that she was stalking him.

“She was worried while we were waiting for the verdict that the jury would believe Mr. Brown’s testimony,” McDowell said.

Brown was given the option to retire after the incident, which he took, and McDowell said Watkins was blamed by their co-workers for making him lose his job. A doctor testified that Watkins suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the encounter.

Watkins said she felt like the system worked after the verdict, according to McDowell, adding Watkins had rejected a $40,000 offer prior to trial.

“She hugged me and she cried uncontrollably for about three or four minutes,” he said.

The defendants were represented by Assistant Attorney General Thomas Faulk.

Got a verdict or settlement? Let us know about it! 

Angel Watkins v. Morgan State University Department of Police and Public Safety, et al.

Court: Baltimore City Circuit

Case No.: 24C15005222

Judge: Jeannie J. Hong

Proceeding: Jury trial

Outcome: $200,000 verdict for plaintiff; $50,000 against Morgan State University for negligent retention, $50,000 against Officer Anthony Brown and $150,000 against Morgan State for battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and violation of the Maryland Declaration of Rights counts.

Dates:

Incident: Oct. 18, 2012

Suit filed: Oct. 15, 2015

Verdict: Jan. 24, 2017

Plaintiff’s Attorney: Towson solo practitioner Peter T. McDowell

Defendants’ Attorneys: Thomas Faulk of the Maryland Office of the Attorney General

Baltimore to settle lawsuit with youth referee after attack

Baltimore city is expected to settle a with a youth basketball referee who cried foul after he was assaulted by a coach and several spectators at a game at St. Frances Academy two years ago

The  is scheduled to approve a $30,000 payment at its Wednesday meeting to end brought by Richard Hitchens, a referee for the Baltimore City Department of Recreation and Parks youth basketball league.

Hitchens sustained injuries requiring surgery and other medical and dental care as a result of the incident, according to the memorandum prepared for the city spending panel. In his complaint, filed in in November 2015, Hitchens claimed his head was injured. The lawsuit does not name the alleged assailants nor explain what led to the attack.

The lawsuit alleged the city failed to provide adequate security for the event under a theory of premises liability.

The Baltimore City Law Department recommended the “to resolve this litigation amicably and to avoid the expense, time, and uncertainties of further protracted litigation.”

The case is Richard Hitchens v. St. Frances Academy, 24C15005490.

Judge preserves officers’ defamation, malicious prosecution claims against Mosby

Baltimore City State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby addresses the media Wednesday in west Baltimore with a mural depicting Freddie Gray behind her. (Maximilian Franz/The Daily Record)
Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby. (Maximilian Franz/The Daily Record)

A federal judge Friday preserved and malicious prosecution claims brought by five Baltimore city police officers against State’s Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby and the sheriff’s office member who signed charging documents in connection with the death of in 2015.

Also pending  are claims for invasion of privacy and other Fourth Amendment violations, according to Senior U.S. District Judge Marvin J. Garbis’ order.

Garbis dismissed claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of process, conspiracy and violations of the 14th Amendment and Fourth Amendment based on Mosby’s presentations to the grand jury.

Garbis also dismissed all claims against the state, which has not waived sovereign .

A case planning conference will be held “promptly,” according to online court records.

Garbis heard arguments on the motions to dismiss in October, which centered on Mosby’s immunity from civil suits when doing her job as a prosecutor.

Taking the plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true, Garbis found plausible the officers’ claims that there was no probable cause to arrest and prosecute them. The claims are also sufficient to support a claim of deprivation of rights under the Fourth Amendment, Garbis ruled.

“Allegations are not evidence,” Garbis said in a footnote. “The Court is not deciding whether Plaintiffs can present evidence adequate to avoid summary judgment.”

As for Mosby’s remarks at a press conference announcing the charges, Garbis said some of them were “at least plausibly, if not obviously, defamatory,” placing the plaintiffs in a false light.

In regards to Mosby’s argument that she was immune to constitutional claims, Garbis ruled the plaintiffs ostensibly refuted her argument she was acting as a prosecutor throughout the relevant time period. But the judge emphasized that evidence later may show she is entitled to that immunity.

The lawsuits were filed in April and May in both state and federal court by Lt. Brian Rice, Sgt. Alicia White and Officers Edward Nero, Garrett Miller and William Porter. Officer Caesar Goodson has not filed suit to date.