Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

SIDNEY AND SANDI NAZELROD Plaintiffs vs. GARRETT COUNTY SANITARY DISTRICT, INC. Defendant

* * * * CIVIL NO. H-01-3848

*

*

*

*

o0o

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Sidney Nazelrod and his wife Sandi (the "Nazelrods") are the owners of business properties located in the Town of Loch Lynn Heights, Maryland.1 On December 13, 2001, the Nazelrods filed a

civil action in this Court seeking a recovery for damage to their businesses allegedly caused by leaking municipal water lines which resulted in the flooding of portions of their properties. In their complaint, the Nazelrods named as defendants the City of Loch Lynn, Board of Garrett County Commissioners, Garrett County Administrator R. Lamont Pagenhardt, Garrett County Sanitation

Department and Tharager's.2

After some of the defendants filed

Loch Lynn Heights County, Maryland.
2

1

is

a

municipality

located

in

Garrett

The Town of Loch Lynn Heights was incorrectly named in the complaint as "City of Loch Lynn." Garrett County Sanitary

motions to dismiss, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against the City of Loch Lynn and Tharager's.3 In its Memorandum

and Order of April 18, 2002, this Court granted the motion to dismiss of the Board of County Commissioners for Garrett County and County Administrator Pagenhardt. As noted in that ruling, Garrett

County Sanitary District is an autonomous corporate body which alone is responsible for the maintenance of and repairs to water lines located in Garrett County (Slip op. at 6). Accordingly, the

Court's Order directed the Clerk to correct the docket to show that the sole Sanitary remaining District, defendant Inc. in this case is Garrett County

(hereinafter

"Sanitary

District").

Thereafter, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. Pursuant to a Scheduling Order entered by the Court, the parties have engaged in discovery. Presently pending is a motion In

for summary judgment filed by defendant Sanitary District.

support of that motion, counsel for defendant has submitted a memorandum of law and exhibits consisting of excerpts from

depositions taken during discovery. turn has filed an opposition to

Counsel for the Nazelrods in defendant's pending motion,

together with other exhibits. reply to plaintiffs' opposition.

Recently, defendant submitted a

Following its review of the memoranda, exhibits and other

District, Inc. was incorrectly named "Garrett County Sanitation Department." Tharager's is an engineering firm located in Clarksburg, West Virginia. 2
3

matters of record here, this Court has concluded that no hearing is necessary for a ruling on the pending motion. 105.6. See Local Rule

For the reasons stated herein, defendant's motion for

summary judgment will be granted as to Counts I, II and III of the amended complaint and the other remaining Counts will be dismissed without prejudice. I Plaintiffs' Claims The amended complaint contains seven counts, as follows: Count I Inverse Condemnation/Temporary Taking Count II Count III Count IV Count V Procedural Due Process Section 1983 Substantive Due Process Section 1983 Common Law Trespass Intentional Interference With Prospective Business Relationships Count VI Count VII Negligent Inspection Negligent Maintenance

Counts I, II and III assert claims under federal law while Counts IV-VII assert claims under Maryland common law. Count I is

brought under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution while Counts II and III are brought under 42 U.S.C.

Download Nazelrod v. Garrett County Sanitation District.pdf

Maryland Law