Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND DAVID B. RUNKLE, ET AL., d/b/a RyWest, t/a Chronicle Press, Inc. v. WILLIAM B. O'NEIL, JR., ET AL. : : : : CIVIL NO. CCB-06-2326 : : : ...o0o...

MEMORANDUM Now pending before the court is defendant William B. O'Neil, Jr.'s motion to dismiss claims of tortious interference with prospective advantage, malicious use of process, and civil conspiracy brought against him by David B. Runkle, d/b/a RyWest, t/a Chronicle Press, Inc. ("CPI") and Donna Runkle, t/a Custom Image Printing ("CIP") (collectively "the plaintiffs"). The motion has been fully briefed,1 and pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing is necessary. For the reasons set forth below, this motion will be denied. BACKGROUND2 This suit stems from a feud over a commercial printing business (CPI) and a building which housed CPI and some rental units (107 South Seton Avenue, Emmitsburg, Frederick

The briefing schedule was slightly unorthodox, yet each side has been afforded full opportunity to explain its position. In response to the plaintiffs' preliminary opposition to his motion (docket entry no. 6), Mr. O'Neil, who is representing himself, filed a motion for extension of time (docket entry no. 8), to which he attached an "answer . . . in opposition to plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss," which was docketed as his reply brief (docket entry no. 10). The plaintiffs were permitted to file a supplemental opposition in response (docket entry no. 14), as Mr. O'Neil only focused the grounds on which his motion was based in his reply. This event summary focuses on those facts which are relevant to the claims against defendant O'Neil; other facts are included to provide context as needed. 1
2

1

County, Maryland) ("the building"). (Compl.

Download David B. Runkle, et al.v . William B. O'Neil, Jr., et al..pdf

Maryland Law