Awkard et al v. MNCPPC, No. 8:2008cv01562 - Document 100 (D. Md. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 3/2/2011. (ranks, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Awkard et al v. MNCPPC Doc. 100 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ROBERT AWKARD, et al. Plaintiffs, v. MARYLAND NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION, et al. Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Case No.: RWT 08cv1562 MEMORANDUM OPINION A hearing on Defendant Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 75)1 and Defendant Macris, Hendricks & Glascock, P.A. and Defendant Douglass H. Riggs, III s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 78) is presently scheduled for March 7, 2011 at 10:30 a.m. ECF No. 86. On February 24, 2011, Plaintiff William Rounds, through new counsel, filed a motion to continue the hearing, stating in support of his motion that he had only been retained by Rounds two days prior. ECF No. 93. Rounds new counsel requested a thirty day continuance of the hearing to allow him to review the voluminous pleadings in this case and to determine whether to file a motion seeking leave to file a second amended complaint on Mr. Rounds behalf. Id. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission opposes Rounds motion to continue, arguing that Rounds unnecessarily delayed in obtaining replacement counsel after his previous counsel withdrew. ECF No. 96. Defendants Sara and Paul Arey also 1 Defendants Paul and Sara Arey concurred in Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission s Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 76 Dockets.Justia.com oppose the continuance, arguing that a continuance will cause them to experience financial hardship because they cannot sell their property until this litigation is complete. ECF No. 97. The Court has no reason to doubt that Rounds had legitimate difficulty in obtaining replacement counsel to act on a pro bono basis. This litigation has been long, and involves multiple, complex issues regarding land use and federal constitutional law. Review of the pleadings in this case will take considerable effort and diligence on behalf of Rounds new counsel, and the Court finds that there is good cause to grant a brief continuance of the motions hearing. Further, through no fault of his own, counsel for the other Plaintiffs in this action filed a Second Amended Complaint purportedly on Rounds behalf. See ECF No. 74. Rounds was not represented by those attorneys, and considerable confusion has ensued. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission argues that this confusion counsels against granting the motion for a continuance; however, the Court finds that any error was that of counsel for the other Plaintiffs, not Rounds, and it is therefore unreasonable to hold Rounds or his new counsel accountable for that error. The Court has serious concerns about limiting Rounds to pursuing allegations contained in the Second Amended Complaint, when it is clear that he did not consent to its filing. At the very least, Rounds, assisted by new counsel, should be given a brief period of time in which to consider whether to join the Second Amended Complaint or seek leave to file his own second amended complaint. Though the Court is sympathetic to the negative impact this litigation has purportedly had on the Areys ability to sell their property, a brief continuance is necessary to protect Plaintiff Rounds interests. The Court believes that a consolidated motions hearing in which all motions to dismiss will be heard as to the complaints of all Plaintiffs will, in the end, expedite the 2 resolution of this litigation. Given the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds Rounds request for a brief continuance of the March 7, 2011 hearing to be reasonable. The Court is confident that no party will be prejudiced by this brief delay. This case was stayed for over two years, and a delay of two months is minor in the context of this litigation. Moreover, this delay is necessary to allow Rounds to fully and adequately present his case.2 Accordingly, the Court will, by separate order, direct Rounds to file any motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on or before March 24, 2011. Defendants will be directed to file any opposition to any such a motion on or before April 7, 2011. Rounds will be directed to file any reply in support of his motion on or before April 21, 2011. If Rounds determines that he wishes to join Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint, he shall file a notice to this effect on or before March 24, 2011. The hearing on Defendant Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 75) and Defendant Macris, Hendricks & Glascock, P.A. and Defendant Douglass H. Riggs, III Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 78) shall be continued until May 16, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. In addition, argument on any motion filed by Rounds seeking leave to file a second amended complaint will also be heard at the May 16, 2011 hearing. Argument on all motions will be limited to two hours. A separate order follows. March 2, 2011 Date /s/ Roger W. Titus United States District Judge 2 The Court is cognizant of Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission s frustration with this delay, but its proposed dual briefing schedule in which Rounds would separately brief and argue any proposed second amended complaint is not in the interests of judicial efficiency, as overlapping legal issues will likely be raised in Rounds filings and the filings of the other Plaintiffs to this action. See ECF No. 96 at 4. 3
]]>
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.
