rfl_heckman motion to dismiss
DESCRIPTION
Rockville Football League Inc. and Eric Heckman File Motion to Dismiss.TRANSCRIPT
OV)
o-, SEU.':c cJ:€
t , l . . :- :d.+__
- -- .4t-
I r , F*
:;i ?l'& c:)r
!
gc{
SCOTT SHIRLEI.
Plaintiffv.
ERIC HECKMANandROCKVILLE FOOTBALL LEAGUEBOARD OF DIRECTORSandCITY OF ROCI(VILLE. MARYLAND
IN TIIE
CIRCIIIT COIIRT FOR
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
MARYLAND
tLIL
U7
irG:Lr.]J
Case No.: 339630-V
Defendants
DEFENDANTS ERIC HECKMAN AND ROCKVILLEFOOTBALL LEAGUE'S MOTION TO DISMISS F'OR
INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF PROCESS
Defendants Eric Heckman and Rockville Football League, by and through their
counsel, Craig Brodsky, Shannon Madden Marshall and Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann,
LLP, pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-322(a), hereby file this Motion to Dismiss for
Insuffi6ient Service of Process. In support of their Motion, Defendants states as follows:
1. Plaintiff has sued Defendants for misrepresentation, defamation, violation
of due process and breach of contract, See Complaint. Although the allegations are
grossly lacking in factual detail, Plaintiff apparently complains that he was aggrieved
when, after a hearing, he was removed from his youth football coaching position for
alleged misconduct.
2. Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County
on October 20,2010. On October 27,2070, a 30-day sunmons was issued. See Exhibit A
(docket entries for case no. 339630-V). On or about December 2,2010,plaintiffattempted
to perfect service on both Mr. Heckman and the Rockville Football League (..ML") by
delivering the summons and Complaint to a Mr. Demus at the RFL corporate address. Mr.
Demus is not an officer of, nor even employed by, RFL. See Exhibit B (Affidavit of Eric
Heckman). He is not a managing or general agent, or any other agent appointed by law to
receive service on behalf of RFL. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiffhas clearly failed to properly
serve Defendant RFL under Md. Rule 2-124(d).
3. Service is likewise defective as to Eric Heckman. To date. Mr. Heckman
has yet to be served individually in accordance with Rule 2-12I. See Exhibit B (Affidavit
of Eric Heckman).
4. Further, the 30-day summonses issued on I0l21ll0 had apparently expired
by the time of the (defective) attempted service on these Defendants. See Exhibit A
(docket sheet reflecting returns of service on l2l2ll0, after the summonses had expired.)
5. Plaintiff s insuffrciency of service of process is grounds for dismissal under
Maryland Rules 2-322(a)(l) afi 2-322(a)().
6. A proposed Order is attached.
WHEREFORE, for the above-stated reasons, Defendants Eric Heckman and
Rockville Football League respectfully move to dismiss Plaintiff s claims against them in
their entirety.
Craig BrodskyShannon Madden Marshall t l'Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLPOne South Street, 20s FloorBaltimore, Maryland 21202(410) 783-4000 Tel.; (4r0) 783-4040 FaxAtto rney s fo r D efe ndantsEric Heckmanand Rockville FootbullLeagae
Respectfully submitted,
kj
UW
+-
Ehc}:dcLJ,. ;g
*tg '
- tst ILi lri
Cj ]q] ,J
@lf,t
Ol
-"t
I
(Fhl
ii,t.i4t
Defendants Eric Heckman and Rockville Football League respectfully request a
hearing
i on the above Motion to Dismiss.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on thi&{-C day of February, 2011, copies of the
foregoing Motion to Dismiss, Memorandum of Law, and proposed order were sent via
first-class mail, postage prepaid, to:
Mary Ann Ryan, Esquire319 Main StreetLaurel, MD 20707
Patricia P. Via, EsquireChief, Division of LitigationOffice of County Attorney - 3'o Floor101 Monroe StreetRockville, MD 20850
Christine M. Collins, EsquireAssociate CountY AttorneY .Executive Office Building, 3'o Floor101 Monroe StreetRockville, MD 20850
Shannon Madden Marshall
cttJ")
Cfl
.g-rr{
I
E{\,
Fla{rlc5(-]7-11_
Cf ICL-
;:-*irtrj lrJlt:- J
J
rii''
scoTT SHIRLEY,
v.Plaintiff
IN TIIE
CIRCUIT COURT FOR
MONTGOMERY COTJNTY
MARYLANDERIC IIECKMANandROCKVILLE FOOTBALL LEAGUEBOARD OF DIRECTORSandCITY OF ROCI(VILLE, MARYLAND Case No.: 339630-V
Defendants
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SI]PPORT OFDEFENDANTS ERIC HECKMAN AND ROCKVILLE
FOOTBALL LEAGUE'S MOTION TO DIS]\{ISSFOR INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF PROCESS
Defendants Eric Heckman and Rockville Football League, by and through their
counsel, Craig Brodsky, Shannon Madden Marshall and Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann,
LLP, pursuant to Maryland Ptule 2-322(a), hereby submit this Memorandum of Law in
support of their Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process.
I. Backsround
Plaintiff has sued Defendants for misrepresentation, defamation, violation of due
process and breach of contract. See Complaint. Although the allegations are gossly
lacking in factual detail, Plaintiff apparently complains that he was aggrieved when, after a
hearing, he was removed from his youth football coaching position for alleged misconduct.
Plaintiff frled his Complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County on
October 20,2010. On October 21,2010, a summons was issued. Exhibit A (docket entries
for case no. 339630-V). Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff attempted to perfect service on both
Mr. Heckman and the Rockville Football League ("ML"; by delivering the summons and
-a-,s
Complaint to a Mr. Demus at the RFL corporate address. Id. Mr. Demus is not an officer
of, nor even employed by, RFL. ^See Exhibit B (Affrdavit of Eric Heckman). He is not a
managing or general agent, or any other agent appointed by law to receive service on
behalf of RFL. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff has clearly failed to properly serve Defendant
RFL under Md. Rule 2-124(d).
Service is likewise defective as to Eric Heckman. To date, Mr. Heckman has yet to
be served individually in accordance with Rule 2-121 . See Exhibit B (Affidavit of Erick
Heckman). Accordingly, service on Mr. Heckman was defective under Maryland Rule 2-
12I. Further, the 30-day summonses issued on I0l2llI0 had apparently expired by the
time of the (defective) attempted service on these Defendants . See Exhibit A. Without
proper service, personal jurisdiction has not been acquired, and Plaintiff s Complaint must
be dismissed as to these Defendants pursuant to Rules 2-322(a)(l) and2-322(a)(4).
il. Sr.qloARp or Rnvtnw
A motion to dismiss lies where no justiciable controversy exists. Broadwater v.
state,303 Md. 461, 467, 494 A.2d 934,937 (1985). The court should assume the truth of
all well-pleaded relevant facts alleged in the complaint and all inferences that can
reasonably be drawn from them, Rossaki v. NtlS Corp.,116 Md. App. 11, 18, 695 A.zd
203, 207 (1997), but where the ailegations in the complaint, even if true, do not entitle the
plaintiff to relief as a matter of law, the case should be dismissed. Lubore v. MM
Associates, 109 Md. App. 3 12, 322, 674 A.2d 547, 552 (1996).
III" Lncu, Ancunmxr
Plaintiff has been unable to meet even the most basic standards of service
process under Maryiand law. Maryland Rule 2-121 requires that service of process
made on an individual by the following methods:
(1) by delivering to the person to be served a copy of the summons,complaint, and all other papers filed with it;
(2) if the person to be served is an individual, by leaving a copy of thesummons, complaint, and all other papers filed with it at the individual'sdwelling house or usual place of abode with a resident of suitable ageand discretion; or
(3) bV mailing to the person to be served a copy of the summons, complaint,and all other papers filed with it by certified mail requesting:"Restricted Delivery - show to whom, date, address of delivery."
Plaintiff purported to serve Mr. Heckman by leaving a copy of the summons and
Complaint at the RFL address, not Mr. Heckman's home, with an individual who is not
Mr. Heckman, and who is not authorized to accept service on his behalf. See Exhibits A
and B. Thus, service on Mr. Heckman is clearly defective. Further, constructive
knowledge of Plaintiff s suit against it is insufficient to cure the defects in service. See
Miles v. Hamilton, 269 Md. 708, 713 (1973) (holding that "the fact that the defendant
might have had actual knowledge of the suit against him would not cure a defective
service.")
Service is likewise fatally flawed as to Defendant RFL. Maryland Rule 2-124
requires that:
(c) Service is made upon a corporation, incorporatedassociation, or joint stock company by serving its resident agent,president, secretary, or treasurer. If the corporation, incorporatedassociation, or joint stock company has no resident agent or if a goodfaith attempt to serve the resident agent, president, secretary, or
of
be
treasurer has failed, services may be made by serving the manager,
any director, vice president, assistant secretary, assistant treasurer, or
other person expressly or impliedly authorized to receive service of
process.
As is reflected in the attached Affidavit (Exhibit B), there is no proof of any service upon
any appropriate RFL employee with either statutory or corporate authority to accept legal
process. See Exhibits A and B. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to establish prima facie
evidence of valid service. See Sheehy v. Sheehy,250 Md. 181, 185 (1968) (holding that a
proper return is prima facie evidence of valid service).
Without sufficient service of process, this Court does not have jurisdiction over
pp1- or Mr. Heckm a1^. See Miserandino v. Resort Properties, lnc.,345 Md. 43, 56 (1997)
("In Maryland, the method of service of process ordinarily required to obtain original
personal jurisdiction over a resident or nonresident individual is by personal delivery, or by
certified mail with restricted delivery and return receipt stating to whom delivered and the
date and address of delivery"), Miles v. Hamilton,269 Md. at 713 (holding that without
proper service, jurisdiction was absent and court's judgment was invalid). Therefore,
PlaintifPs Complaint must be dismissed as to these Defendants.
IV. CoNcr.usrox
Plaintiffls insuffrciency of service of process is grounds for dismissal under
Maryland RuIe 2-322(aX1) and2-322(a)(4). Accordingly, Defendants Eric Heckman and
Rockville Football League respectfully request this court to dismiss Plaintiff s Complaint
and each and every claim against them.
.1V-'t
Respectfu lly submitted,
Shannon Madden MarshallGoodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLPOne South Street,20s FloorBaltimore, Maryland 21202(410) 7 83 -4000 Tel. ; (4r0) 7 83 -4040 FaxAtto rney s fo r D efe n dantsEric Heckman and Rockville FootballLeague
CERTIFICATE OF SERYICE
foregoing Motion to Dismiss, Memorandum of Law, and proposed Order were sent via
first-class mail, postage prepaid, to:
Mary Ann Ryan, Esquire319 Main StreetLaurel,l{ID 20707
Patricia P. Via, EsquireChiel Division of LitigationOffice of County Attomey - 3'o Floor101 Monroe StreetRockville, MD 20850
Christine M. Collins, EsquireAssociate County AttomeyExecutive Office Building 3'd Floor101 Monroe StreetRockville, MD 20850
I FIEREBY CERTIFY that on thi. 4f day of February, 2011, copies of the
Shannon Madden Marshall
Case Information Paee 1 of5
*t
Circuit Court of Marvland
Go Back
Circuit Court for Montgomery County - Clvil System
339630V SubType: OTHERTORTS
ro/20l2oto
OPEN
Case Information
Court System:
. Case Number:
Date Filed:
Case Status:
Plaintiff Information(Each Alias, Address, and Attorney for the Plaintiff is displayed)
g16mg; SHIRLEY, SCOTT
Address: 4703 KEMPER STREET
ROCKVILLE MD 20853
Atbrney(s) for the Plaintiff
116ms. RYAN, MARY ANN
Address: 319 MAIN STREET
LAUREL MD 2O7O7
Phone: 301-725-3800
Defendant Information(Each Alias, Address, and Attomey for the Defendant is displayed)
lrlsmg; HECKMAN, ERIC
Address: C/O ROCKVILLE FOOTBALL LEAGUE
1325 SEVEN LOCKS RD 219
POTOMAC MD 20854
Name: ROCKVILLE FOOTBALL LEAGUE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Address: 1325 SEVEN LOCKS RD 219
POTOMAC MD 20854
Name: CITY OF ROCI(VILLE MARYLAND
Address: CITY COUNCIL
50 MARYLAND AVE
ROCKVILLE MD 20850
Attorney(s) for the Defendant
Name: VIA, PATRICIA
Address: CHIEF, DMSION OF LITIGATION
mhtml:file://C:\Users\msm\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Intemet Fi
Case Information Page 2 of 5
OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORNEY. 3RD FL.
rol MONROE STREET
ROCKVILLE MD 20850
Phone: 240-777-6704
Name: COLLINS, CHRISTINE M
Address: ASSOCIATE COUNTY ATTORNEY
EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
101 MONROE STREET 3RD FL
ROCKVILLE MD 20850
Phone: 240-777-6700
Court Scheduling Information(Schedule is subject to change)
Event Date: O3/OllzOLl Event Time: 1O:OO AM Judge: CRAVEN, THOMAS L
Location: 5O Maryland Avenue 8th Floor Courtroom: 6
Description: MOTION TO DISMISS(PARTIAL)
Event Date: OalO4l2OlL Event Time: 01:30 PM
Descriotion : PRE-TRIAL
Event Date: OA/O4/2Oll EventTime: O1:3O PM
Descriotion : SETTLEMENT HEARING
Issues Information
Issue: NEGLIGENCE - DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER
Issue: MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS
Issue: VIOLATfON
Issue: BREACH OF CONTRACT
Document Tracking
Docket Date: 1Ol2Ol2O1O DocketNumber: 1
Docket Descriotion: BILL OF COMPLAINT
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Plaintiff
Docket Text: COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL, FILED.
Docket Date: 1Ol2O /2OIO Docket Number: 2
Docket Description: INFORMATION SHEET FILED
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Plaintiff
mhtrnl:file://C:\Users\msm\AppData\Iocal\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\... 2126120Il
Case Information Page 3 of5
Docket Text: PLAINTIFF'S INFORMATION SHEET, FILED.
Docket Date: 1Ol20 I2OLO Docket Number: 3
Docket Description: INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Plaintiff
Docket fsxl; PLAINTtrFF'S INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE, FILED.
Docket Date: 1Ol21 l2OlO Docket Number: 4
Docket Description: ORDE& SCHEDULING HEARING CML TRK
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Ruling Judge: DEBELIUS, JOHN W III
. NOTICE OF SCHEDULING HEARING AND ORDER OF COURT - TRACK 3 (DEBELIUS,uocKet rext: J.), ENTERED. (COPIES MAILED)
Docket Date: 1Ol21 l2OLO Docket Number: 5
Docket Descript ion: NOTICE, NEW CASE NUMBER
Docket Type: Docket Fi led By: Court
Docker lsal; NOTICE SENT GMNG NEW CASE NUMBER TO ALL PARTIES.
Docket Date: 1Ol21 /2OtO Dockef Number: 6
Docket Description: SUMMONS ISSUED
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
THREE 30 DAY SUMMONSES ISSUED FOR PERSONAL SERVICE AND MAILED TODocKet lext:41agp1gy.
Docket Date: O1l13 /2OLL Docket Number: 7
Docket Description: MOTION, DISMISS (PARTIAL - CASE NOT CLOSED)
Docket Type: Motion Filed By: Defendant Status: Open
Ruling ludge; CRAVEN' THOMAS L
Reference Docket(s): Opposition: 15
DEFENDANT CITY OF ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND'S MOTION TO DISMISS O& IN THE
^^_,_^! _^._,. ALTERNATTVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, REQUEST FOR HEARTNG,ueLKeL
'c^L' MEMOR/ANDUM OF GROUNDS AND AUTHORITIES AND ATTACHMENTS, FILED.(LP)
Docket Date: O1l20/?OLL Docket Number: 8
Docket Description: NOTICE, HEARING DATE
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
-^._.. NOTICE OF HEARING DATE, FILED AND MAILED. (HEARING DATE: O3lOrl20ll)
DocKer text; (LP)
Docket Date: O1121 /2Ot t Docket Number: 9
Docket Description: HEARING, SCHEDULING HEARING, ALL PRESENT
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
mhtrnl:file://C:\Users\msm\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Intemet Files\... 2126120II
Case Information Page 4 of5
Ruling Judge: MASON' MICHAEL D
, SCHEDULING HEARING (MASON, I.) . ALL PARTIES PRESENT SCHEDULING ANDrrocKet rext: ppglplAL ORDERS DISTRIBUTED AND IN EFFECT,
Audio Media: 09-0121f 1 Start : 09:51:O9 Stop: O9:55:20
Docket Date: O1l21 lz0Ll Docket Number: 10
Docket Description: JUDGE/MASTER REFERS CASE TO ADR
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Rul ing Judge: MASON, MICHAEL D
. couRT (MASON, J.) REFERS CASE FOR ALTERNATM DISPUTE RESOLUTION.Docket rext: 699p1 ApporNis iuoee wErNsrErN To BE THE MEDTAToR rN THrs cAsE.
Docket Date: O1l21 lz0lL Docket Number: 11
Docket Description: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE: SERVED
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Other
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE ON COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF SCHEDULING HEARTNGDocket lsft; AND ORDER OF COURT: SERVED AS TO CITY OF ROCKVTLLE CITY COUNCIL
w/s/o TANYA ON L2/L7/2011, FTLED. (LP)
Docket Date: O1l21 l20ll Docket Number: L2
Docket Descriotion: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE: SERVED
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Other
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE ON COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF SCHEDULING HEARINGDocket l6yt; AND ORDER OF COURT: SERVED AS TO ROCKVILLE FOOTBALL LEAGUE AND ERIC
HECKMAN W lslO MR. DEMUS ON L2/02/2011, FTLED. (LP)
Docket Date: O1126/2011 Docket Number: 13
Docket Description : ORDE& SCHEDULING
DocketType: Docket Filed By: Court
Rul ing Judge: DEBELIUS, JOHN W I I I
Docket 1sx1; SCHEDULING ORDER (DEBELIUS, J.) TRACK 3 ENTERED. (COPIES MAILED)
Docket Date: O1l26lZOIL Docket Number: L4
Docket Description: SCHEDULING AND PRETRIAL HEARING ORDER
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Rul ing Judge: DEBELIUS, JOHN W I I I
_^._.. SCHEDULING ORDER AND PRETRIAL HEARING ORDER - TRACK 3 (DEBELIUS, J.)uocKet lext: gplgpED. (COpIES HANDED)
Docket Date: Ol,/31l2OtL Docket Number: 15
Docket Descriot ion: OPPOSITION TO MOTION
Docket Type: Opposit ion Fi led By: Plaint i f f
Reference Docket(s): Motion: 7
Docket 1sx1' PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATM,MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT AND
mhtml:file://C:\Users\msm\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\... 212612011
Case Information Page 5 of5
ATTACHMENTS, FILED.
Docket Date:
Docket Description:
Docket Type:
Docket Text:
OL|SU20ll Docket Number: 16
LINE TO REISSUE
Docket Filed By: Plaintiff
PLAINTIFF'S LINE TO RE.ISSUE, FILED.
Docket Date:
Docket Description:
Docket Type:
Docket Text:
O2l02/20ll Docket Number: 17
NOTICE, EXISTING SCHEDULE
Docket Filed By: Court
NOTICE OF EXTSTING SCHEDULE SENT TO PATRICTA P. VrA, ESQ., FTLED.
Docket Date:
Docket Description:
Docket Type:
Docket Text:
O2lO2|ZOLI Docket Number: 18
SUMMONS REISSUED
Docket Filed By: Court
TWO 30 DAY SUMMONS REISSUED AS TO ERIC HECKMAN AND ROCKVILLEFOOTBALL LEAGUE BOARD.
This is an electronic case record. Full case information cannot be made available either because of legal restrictionson access to case records found in Maryland rules 16-1001 through 16-1011, or because of the practical difficulties
inherent in reducing a case record into an eledronic format.
Go Back
mhtnl:file://C:\Users\msm\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\... 212612011
02/28/20L 10:99 FAX 301 36514" '9
scoTT SHTRLEY,
Y.
ALLSTATEr:'.'.')..
.s
Plaintiff
IN THE
CIRCIIIT COIIRT FOR
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
Case No,: 339630-VERIC IIECKMAN, et rI.,
Defendarrts*********
AFFIDAVTT Or ERIC HECKMAN
I, Eric Hectrrnan, am over the age of I E and am compctent to testify to tbe matters set fofih
herein
I am President of the Rockville Football League;
As ofthe date ofmy signature below, I have not been personally served with a
Summons and Complaint concerning the above-referenced mflfier;
3. The purported service address reportedly used by Plaintiff, 1325 Seven Locla Rrl,
Potornac, Maryland 20854, is not my dwelling house nor my usual plaoo of abode;
4, Plaintiffs retum of service on the Rockville Football League reportedly irrdicates
service upon a "Mr. Demus";
Iv{r. Demrx is not and hss nwer been, president, secretary, freasuer, manflger,
director, vice president, assistant secretary, assistant heasurcr, shareholder, employee, agent or
resident agent ofthe Rockville Football League; and
IUr. Demus does not have, and has never had, express or implied auttrority to acft?t
service of pmcess on my behalf, nor on behalf ofthe Rocladlle Football Lesgue.
I SOLEMT{LY AITIRM TINDER THE PENALTIES OF PEITIURY A}TD UIIONPER,SONAL Itr{OWLEDGE TIIAT THE CONTENTS OF TIIE FOREGOING PAPERARE TRTTE.
'|
2.
@ ooz