Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

JAMES W. WARD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NANCY R. SIMPERS, et al., Defendants.

* * * * * * Civil Action No. RDB-07-3266

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs James W. Ward ("Ward"), Golden Arrow Real Estate, Inc., and Golden Arrow Financial, Inc. (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed this civil action against Nancy R. Simpers and Sarah Bloom Raskin (collectively, "Defendants"). Ward is licensed as a real estate broker by the Maryland Real Estate Commission ("MREC"), which is located in Maryland's Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation. Ward is the president of both Golden Arrow Real Estate, a real estate brokerage firm, and Golden Arrow Financial, a mortgage brokerage business licensed by the Commissioner of Financial Regulation ("Commissioner"), also located in Maryland's Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation. Defendant Simpers is the Chairperson of the MREC and Defendant Raskin is the Commissioner of Financial Regulation. Plaintiffs' Complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief from two administrative proceedings currently being brought by Defendants as a result of certain real estate and financial transactions undertaken by the various Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' request for relief is based on two separate counts: Count I alleges that federal law preempts the state statutes and

regulations under which Defendants have brought administrative charges against Plaintiffs; and Count II alleges that the same state statutes violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Currently pending before this Court are Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Paper No. 6) and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Paper No. 10). The parties' submissions have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2008). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED AS MOOT. BACKGROUND Bound to accept all well-pleaded allegations as true, this Court has taken the following factual allegations largely from Plaintiffs' Complaint. See Ibarra v. United States, 120 F.3d 472, 473 (4th Cir. 1997). The background of this case involves two discrete sets of transactions undertaken by Plaintiffs, referred to below as the HUD transactions and the Simpson transaction. As a result of these transactions, Simpers, as the Chairperson of the MREC, and Commissioner Raskin each initiated separate administrative charges in the Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH") seeking to revoke licenses previously granted by the State of Maryland to Ward and Golden Arrow Financial, respectively.1

Plaintiffs in this case include Ward, Golden Arrow Real Estate, and Golden Arrow Financial. The MREC has brought administrative charges against Ward under the Maryland Real Estate Brokers Law, and the Commissioner has brought administrative charges against Golden Arrow Financial under Maryland Mortgage Lender Law. Therefore, there are no direct administrative charges levied against the third Plaintiff, Golden Arrow Real Estate. Defendants have not raised the issue of whether Golden Arrow Real Estate has standing to sue in this case. This Court will presume, however, that Golden Arrow Real Estate has standing based on the alleged injury contained in the Complaint; namely, that, Golden Arrow -2-

1

I.

Plaintiffs' Alleged Unlawful Activity A. The HUD Transactions

Ward, via Golden Arrow Real Estate, represented clients who were interested in purchasing "HUD homes," which are single-family homes repossessed by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"). (Compl.

Download Ward, et al. v. Simpers, et al..pdf

Maryland Law