Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND GOLDMARK FRIENDSHIP, LLC, ET AL. v. STEVEN B. LARSEN, ET AL. * * * * Civil No. JFM-99-2932 * * ***** MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs allege that their federal constitutional rights have been violated during the course of an on-going receivership proceeding currently pending before the Circuit Court for Baltimore City involving a health maintenance organization, Prime Health Corporation. They have instituted this action seeking injunctive and monetary relief against Prime Health's receiver and deputy receiver, the Attorney General of Maryland, and an Assistant Attorney General in her role as the receiver's attorney. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. The motion will be granted. There are two clear bases for dismissal. 1 First, all of the claims asserted by plaintiffs can be litigated through the state court system, subject to certiorari review by the Supreme Court of the United States. Thus, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine clearly applies. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460, 462 U.S. (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). Second, plaintiff's claims are barred by the abstention principles established in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The Younger doctrine

I need not decide whether, as argued by defendants, (1) plaintiffs' claims are barred by the Burford abstention doctrine, (2) defendants are entitled to absolute immunity, or (3) whether plaintiffs have failed to state any claim upon which relief can be granted.

1

requires a federal court to abstain from enjoining or otherwise interfering with a State proceeding when (1) the proceeding "is an on-going state judicial proceeding, (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests, and (3) there is an adequate opportunity to present the federal claims in the state proceeding." Employers Resource Management Co. v. Shannon, 65 F.3d 1126, 1134 (4th Cir. 1995). Here, the State receivership proceedings are on going, those proceedings (involving, as they do, the regulation of health insurance) clearly implicate important State interests, and the Maryland court system provides a fully adequate forum in which to present plaintiffs' federal constitutional claims. A separate order dismissing this action is being entered herewith.

Date: February 22, 2000

_________________________________ J. Frederick Motz United States District Judge

2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND GOLDMARK FRIENDSHIP, LLC, ET AL. v. STEVEN B. LARSEN, ET AL. * * * * Civil No. JFM-99-2932 * * ***** ORDER

For the reasons stated in the memorandum entered herewith, it is, this 22nd day of February 2000 ORDERED 1. Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted; 2. This action is dismissed; and 3. The Clerk is directed to close this file.

___________________________________ J. Frederick Motz United States District Judge

3



Download Goldmark Friendship v Larsen.pdf

Maryland Law