Doe #12 v. Prince George's County Board of Education et al, No. 8:2019cv01307 - Document 31 (D. Md. 2019)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 9/9/2019. (heps, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
Doe #12 v. Prince George's County Board of Education et al Doc. 31 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF M ARYLAND A YA N A A ND R EW S,Parent& N ext Friend ofS.H .,a m inor, + Plaintiff, * CivilNo.P.lM 19-706 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE'S CO UNTY,etal., * Defendants. + + + * * M ONICA HARLEY,Parent& Next Friend ofD .W .,a m inor, * * * * Plaintiff, * * * CivilNo.P,lM 19-709 * BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COIJNTY,etJ/., * Defendants. * * * * + * + * JANE DO E #12,Individually and as Parent * & NextFriend ofJOHN DOE #9,am inor, * + Plaintiffs, * CivilN o.P.lM 19-1307 PRINCE GEO RGE'S COUNTY BOARD O F EDU C ATIO N ,etal., D efendants. + * * + * * # 1 Dockets.Justia.com JAN E D O E #13,Individually and as Parent * & NextFriend ofJOHN DOE #10,a m inor, * * Plaintiffs, CivilNo.PJM 19-1314 PRINCE GEO RGE'S COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,e/aL, * Defendants. * * * * * * JOH N DO E #7 AN D JA NE D O E #11, * Individually and asParents & NextFriends * ofJO H N DO E #8,a m inor, * * Plaintiffs, * * v. * CivilNo.P.lM 19-1368 * PRIN CE GEORGE'S COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATIO N,e/al., * * * D efendants. * M EM O R AN DU M O PIN IO N This M emorandum Opinion applies to five separate civil cases, a1lof which concem DefendantDeonteCm away'sallegedsexualactswithm inorchildren whileemployedatSylvania W oodsElem ento School.In separatecrim inalproceedingsin federaland state court,Carraway pled guilty to crimesincluding child sex abuse,and isnow incarcerated in federalprison. These five civil suits are brought by the parents and next friends of m inor children Carraway is said to have harmed and by the childzen themselves.N otably,there areatleastnine sim ilarcasesinvolving Carraway in theCircuitCourtforPdnceGeorge'sCountythathavebeen consolidated forthe purpose ofthe state proceedings.Thecasespresently before thisCourtwere originally before the Circuit Court for Prince George's County,but were rem oved here by DefendantPrinceGeorge'sCouptyBoardofEducationtttBoardofEducation''l.lPlaintiffsineach ofthe five caseshave iiled M otionsto Rem and to state courtand the Board ofEducation has responded.Them otionsarefully briefed,and no hearingisnecessary.SeeLoc.R . 105.6. Forthefollowing reasons,theM otionstoRem and areGR ANTED astoCiv. No.PJM 191307,Civ.No.PJM 19-1314,and Civ.No.PJM 19-1368 and DENIED asto Civ. N o.PJM 19706 and C iv.N o.PJM 19-709. a. RemovalandRemand Generally,a defendantm ay rem ove to federalcourtany civilaction broughtin state court ifthe federalcourtwould have had originaljmisdiction.28 U.S.C.j 1441(a).Here federal jmisdiction isproperly grotmdedinfederalquestionjurisdiction,28U.S.C.j1331,sineeeaehof thecasesindudesatleastone claim underfederallaw.2Accordingly, none ofthe Parties dispute thatthisCourthaspropersubjectmatterjtuisdiction. The Plaintiffs in a11five cases do,however,claim thattheirrespective cases should be rem anded becauseofaproceduraldefectintherem ovalprocess.M orespecitically,theyclaim that theBoard ofEducation failedto obtain Carraway'sconsentfortherem ovalandthereforefailedto complywiththerequirementthat&t(aq11defendantswhohavebeenproperlyjoinedandservedmust joinin orconsenttotheremovaloftheaction.''28U.S.C.j 1446(b)(2)(A);seealsoHartfordFire Ins.Co.v.HarleysvilleM ut.Ins.Co.,736F.3d255,259(4thCir.2013)(&1TheSupremeCourthas construedthesestatmestorequirea11defendantsinacasetojoininorconsenttoremoval,creating 1Each ofthe fivecasesnam etheBoardofEducation and Carrawayasdefendants.Civ. No.PJM 19-1307,Civ.N o. PJM 19-1314,andCiv.No.PJM 19-1368alsonameSylvaniaW oodsElementary SchoolPrincipalMichelleW illiams. Furthermore,Civ.No.PJM 19-1368also namesthe City ofGlenarden,GlellreedAffordableLLC,and Community ServicesFoundation Corporation asdefendants.In Civ.No.PJM 19-1368,theCity ofGlenarden filedtheNoticeof ' RemovalonbehalfofDefendantsin thatcase. 2Each casecontainsatleastonecountunder20 U .S. C.j1681,etseq.,42U.S.C.j 1983,or18U.S.C.2252A. 3 theso-called çrtzleofunanimity.'').Indeed,thePartiesagreethatCarrawaydidnotconsenttothe rem oval.3 lnstead,the Board of Education argues thatCarraway need notconsentto the removal because he is a ttnominalparty''and istherefore excepted from the generalrequirem entthatall defendantsmustjoinintheremoval.TheCourtdisagrees. Determ ining whether a party is nom inal is a straightforward inquiry based upon the particularfactsofthe case and focused on whetherthenon-consenting pady, e.g.Carraway,has an interestin theoutcomeofthecase.Harford Fire,736 F.3d at260-61.Moreover,theFourth Circuithasadvised thatçûthe word nom inalshould betaken to m ean whata good dictionary says itshouldmean:çtrifling'orçexistinginnameonly.'''f#.,260(citingBlack'sLaw Didionary1148 (9thed.2009)).Clearly Carrawayisnotanominalparty.Heisallegedlytheprimarywrongdoer, a centralfigure in each ofthe cases,and potentially subjectto substantialmoneyjudgments. Accordingly,therem ovalin each casewasprocedurally defective. CasesCiv.No.PJM 19-1307,Civ.No.PJM 19-1314,and Civ.No.PJM 19-1368 Forthisreason/ andsincetheM otionstoRemaùdweretimelytsledinCiv.No.PJM 191307,Civ.N o.PJM 19-1314,and Civ.N o.PJM 19-1368,5the M otionsto Rem and in these cmses are G R AN TED . 3CounselfortheBoardofEducation soughtCarraway'sconsentforrem ovalonN ovember21,2018,andsubsequently on April 17,2019.However,Carraway,then incarcerated in federalprison,refused to participate in each ofthe requested phonecalls.See,e.g.,Civ.N o.PJM -l9-1368,ECFN o.l-14. 4Plaintiffsin these three casesalso seek to remand on abstention grounds. However,there isno need to address abstentionastothesecases. 5In Civ.N o. PJM l9-1307,theBoard ofEducation filed itsNotice ofRemovalon May3,2019,and Plaintiffstiled their Motion to Remand on M ay 29,2019.In Civ.No.PJM 19-13l4,the Board ofEducation filed itsNotice of Removalon M ay 3,2019,and Plaintiffsfiled theirMotionto Remand on May 28,2019.In Civ.No.PJM 19-1368, the Board ofEducation filed itsNoticeofRemovalon M ay 9,20l9,and PlaintiffstiledtheirM otion to Remand on June4,2019. 4 c. CasesCiv.No.PJM l9-706and Civ No.PJM 19-709 . On theotherhand,theM otionsto Remandin Civ. N o.PJM 19-706and Civ.No.PJM 19- 709 were nottimely filed. Title28U.S.C.j 1447(c),which govemstheprocedlzreafterremoval,states:1<A motion toremandthecaseonthebasisofanydefectotherthanlackofsubjectmatterjurisdictionmustbe madewithin30daysafterthefilingofthenoticeofremovaltmdersection 1446(a).''Theççgtlaillzre ofa1ldefendantsto join in the removalpetition doesnotimplicatethe court's subjectmatter jurisdiction.Rather,itismerely anerrorintheremovalprocess.Asaresult,aplaintiffwho fails to makeatimely objection waivestheobjection.''Payneex rel.Estateofcalzadav.Brake,439 F.3d 198,203 (4thCir.2006).Courtsmuststrictly adhereto this30-day deadline A lm utairiv. . JohnsHopkinsHealthSyl.Corp.,2016W L 97835(D.M d.2016). The Board ofEducation filed itsNotice ofRemovalin both ofthese cases on M arch 6, 2019,and therespectivePlaintiffsdid nottileaM otionto Rem anduntilJune24, 2019,m orethan 30 dayslater.Even thoughthe Courtinvited Plaintiffsto fileM otionsto Remand, Plaintiffswere already outoftime.Thus,by failing to tsle forremand w hhin 30 days, Plaintiffs,and forthat matter,Carraway,waivedtheirrightto seek remandand acceptedthejmisdidion ofthefederal court.SeePtryne,439F.3d198,203-204(4thCir.2006)' ,SeealsoM illerexrel.EstateofDimasv. M orochoBrother' sConst,Inc.,2004W L 727040(M .D.N.C.2004)(statingplaintiffs,aswellas defendants who did notconsentto the removal, waived their rightto remand by nottsling for removalwithin 18U.S.C.j 1447(c)'s30-day deadline). Thus,even though theremovalwasprocedtzrally defective,sincethe M otionsto Rem and werenottim ely filed in Civ.No.PJM 19-706and Civ.No.PJM 19-709,6theM otionstoRemand in these casesare D ENIED . Separate OrderswillISSUE. O /,/ ., /,// - -.' .,. / / zs z.' / - pe '# ., /s/ ETER J.M ESSITTE TE STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Septem ber 9,2019 6Plaintiffsalsoseektoremandonabstentiongrotmds.However,federalcourtsmayremandacasebasedonabstention principlesonlywherethereliefbeing soughtisequitableordeclaratory.SeeQuackenbushv.AllstateIns.Co.,5l7 U.S.706,719(1996).Accordingly,becausePlaintiffsin thesecasesonlyseekmoneydamages,theCourtmaynot remand on thebasisofabstention. 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.