Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

CHAMBERS OF

J. FREDERICK MOTZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

101 WEST LOMBARD STREET BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201 (410) 962-0782 (410) 962-2698 FAX

January 3, 2007 Memo To Counsel Re: Laurel Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Kendl Philbrick, et al. Civil No. JFM-06-615 Dear Counsel: As I indicated at the conclusion of the oral argument held on December 8, 2006, my schedule unfortunately does not permit me to write an extensive opinion. Instead, I will simply briefly state my rulings and the reasons for them. I hope you understand that in doing so I have thoroughly considered your written and oral arguments. They were excellent, and I very much appreciate the skill and professionalism with which they were made. 1. Plaintiff's Claims Regarding the Absence of a Pre-Deprivation Hearing and an Alleged Unconstitutional Shifting of the Burden of Proof are Precluded by the Maryland Court of Appeals' Decision in Maryland Aggregates Ass'n Inc. v. State of Maryland. Federal courts apply res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) to causes of action and issues decided by state courts. Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 467 n.6 (1982). Federal courts do not follow their own rules of res judicata but rather apply the rules of the state in which the prior judgment was obtained. Id. at 482. Under Maryland law there are three requirements for res judicata: (1) there must be a final judgment on the merits; (2) the claim(s) must be substantially the same as the claim(s) in the prior case; and (3) the parties must be the same or in privity with the parties in the previous case. Mears v. Town of Oxford, 762 F.2d 368, 371-72 (4th Cir. 1985). "The doctrine of res judicata is that a judgment between the same parties and their privies is a final bar to any other suit upon the same cause of action, and is conclusive, not only as to all matters that have been decided in the original suit, but as to all matters which with propriety could have been litigated in the first suit." MPC, Inc. v. Kenny, 367 A.2d 486 (Md. 1977) (quoting Alvey v. Alvey, 171 A.2d 92, 94 (Md. 1961)); see also Underwriters Nat'l Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life & Accident & Health Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 455 U.S. 691, 710 (1982) ("A party cannot escape the requirements of . . . res judicata by asserting its own failure to raise matters clearly within the scope of a prior proceeding.").1 The Supreme Court has held explicitly that this doctrine applies

The Maryland Court of Appeals has articulated two tests for determining whether res judicata applies: The "same evidence" test, see, e.g., MPC, Inc. v. Kenny, 367 A.2d 486 (Md. 1977), and a "same transaction" test. See, e.g., Kent County Bd. of Educ. v. Bilbrough, 525 A.2d

1

to

Download Laurel Sand & Gravel v. Kendl Philbrick, et al. - OPINION.pdf

Maryland Law