Doe, et al v. Prince George's County Board of Education, et al, No. 8:2019cv01368 - Document 64 (D. Md. 2019)

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

Download PDF
Doe, et al v. Prince George's County Board of Education, et al Doc. 64 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF M ARYLAND A YA NA A N DR EW S,Parent& N ext Friend ofS.H .,a m inor, Plaintiftl * CivilNo.P.lM 19-706 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY,etal., * * * Defendants. * * * * * M O NIC A H AR LEY ,Parent& N ext Friend ofD.W .,a m inor, * * * * * * Plaintiff, * CivilNo.P.lM 19-709 M. BOARD OF EDUCATION O F PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY,etal., * * Defendants. * * * * * * * JA NE DO E #12,lndividually and asParent * & NextFriend ofJOIIN DOE #9,a m inor, * * làlaitktiffs, + CivilNo.PJM 19-1307 PRIN CE GEORGE'S COIJNTY BOARD O F EDU C ATIO N ,etJ/., Defendants. * * * * * * * * Dockets.Justia.com JANE DO E #13,Individually and asParent * & NextFriend ofJOHN DOE #10,am inor, * # Plaintiffs, * * * CivilNo.PJM 19-1314 * PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,e/al., * # Defendants. * + + + * # * JOHN DOE #7 AND JANE DOE #11, * Individually and as Parents & N extFriends * ofJOH N DO E #8,a minor, * Plaintiffs, CivilN o.P,:M 19-1368 * PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY BOARD O F EDU CATIO N,e/al., D efendants. M EM O R AN DU M O PIN IO N This M em orandllm Opinion applies to tive separate civil cases, allof which concem DefendantDeonteCarraway'salleged sexualadswithminorchildren whileemployedatSylvania W oodsElementary School.ln separate crim inalproceedingsinfederaland statecourt, Carraway pled guilty to crimesincluding child sex abuse,and isnow incarcerated in federalprison. These fve civilsuits are brought by the parents and next friends of m inor children Carraway issaid to have hnrmed and by the chil/ en themselves.N otably,there aze atleastnine sim ilarcasesinvolving Carraway in theCircuitCourtforPrinceGeorge'sCounty thathavebeen consolidated forthe purpose ofthe state proceedings.The casespresently beforethisCourtwere originally before the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, but were removed here by DefendantPrinceGeorge'sCouptyBoardofEducationtG% oardofEducation'l.lPlaintiffsineach ofthe tsve caseshave fled M otionsto Remand to state courtand the Board ofEducation has responded.Them otionsarefully briefed,and noheming isnecessazy. SeeLoc.R.105.6. Forthefollowingreasons,theM otionstoRem and areGRANTED astoCiv. No.PJM 191307,Civ.No.PJM 19-1314,and Civ.No.PJM 19-1368 and DENIED asto Civ. No.PJM 19706 and Civ.No.PJM 19-709. a. Removaland Remand G enerally,a defendantm ay rem ove to federalcourtany civilaction broughtin state court ifthe federalcourtwould have had originaljurisdiction.28 U.S.C.j 1441(a).Here federal jurisdictionisproperlygroundedinfederalquestionjmisdiction,28U.S.C.j1331,sinceeachof the casesindudesatleastoneclaim underfederallaw.2Accordingly, none ofthe Parties disputt thatthisCourthaspropersubjectmatterjtlrisdiction. The Plaintiffs in allfive cases do,however,claim thattheirrespective cases should be rem anded becauseofaproceduraldefectintherem ovalprocess.M orespecitically,theyclaim that theBoard ofEducation failedto obtain Cm away'sconsentfortherem ovalandthereforefailedto complywiththerequirementthatç1Ea1lldefendantswhohavebeenproperlyjoinedandservedmust joininorconsenttotheremovaloftheaction.''28U.S.C.j 1446(b)(2)(A);seealsoHarfordFire Ins.Co.v.HarleysvilleM ut.Ins.Co.,736F.3d255,259(4thCir.2013)(&çTheSupremeCourthas construedthesestatutestorequirea11defendantsinacasetojoininorconsenttoremoval,creating 1Each ofthefivecasesnametheBoard ofEducationand Carraway asdefendants.Civ. No.PJM 19-1307,Civ.No. PJM 19-1314,andCiv.No.PJM 19-1368alsonam eSylvaniaW oodsElem entary SchoolPrincipalM ichelleW illiam s. Furthermore,Civ.No.PJM 19-1368 also namesthe CityofGlenarden,Glenreed AffordableLLC,and Community ServicesFoundation Corporationasdefendants.In Civ.No.PJM 19-1368,theCity ofG lenarden tiledtheNoticeof ' RemovalonbehalfofDefendantsin thatcase. 2Eachcasecontainsatleastonecountunder20 U.S.C.j1681,etseq.,42U.S. C.j1983,or18U.S.C.2252A. the so-called trtzleofunanim ity.'').Indeed,thePartiesagreethatCarrawaydidnotconsenttothe rem oval.3 Instead,the Board of Education argues thatCarraway need notconsentto the removal because he isa tinominalparty''and istherefore excepted from the generalrequirem entthata1l defendantsmustjoinintheremoval.TheCourtdisagrees. Determirling whether a party is nom inal is a straightforward inquiry based upon the particularfactsofthe case and focused on whetherthenon-consenting party, e.g.Carraway,has an interestin theoutcomeofthe case.HarfordFire,736 F.3dat260-61.Moreover,theFourth Circuithasadvised thatGttheword nom inalshouldbetaken to mean whata good dictionary says itshouldm ean:çtrifling'ortexisting innnmeonly.'''f#., 260(ci tingBlack'sLaw Dictionary1148 (9th ed.2009)).ClearlyCarrawayisnotanominalparty.Heisallegedlytheprimarywrongdoer, a centralfigure in each ofthe cases,and potentially subjectto substantialmoneyjudgments. Accordingly,theremovalin each case wasprocedurally defective. b. Cases Civ.N o.PJM 19-1307,Civ.N o.PJM 19-1314,and Civ. No.PJM 19-1368 Fortltisreason/andsincetheMotionstoRemafldweretimelyfiledinCiv.No.PJM 191307,Civ.N o.PJM 19-1314,and Civ.N o.PJM 19-1368,5theM otionsto Remand in these cases are G R ANTED . 3CounselfortheBoardofEducationsoughtCarraway'sconsentforremovalonNovember21,20l8,andsubsequently on April 17,20l9.However,Carraway,then incarcerated in federalprison,refused to pm icipate in each ofthe requested phonecalls.See,e.g.,Civ.No.PJM -19-l368,ECFNo.1-14. 4Plaintiffsin thesethree casesalso seek to rem and on abstention p ounds. However,there isno need to address abstention asto thesecases. 5InCiv. No.PJM 19-1307,the Board ofEducation tiled itsNoticeofRemovalonM ay 3, 2019,and Plaintiffstiled theirM otion to Remand on May 29!2019.In Civ.No.PJM 19-13l4,the Board ofEducation 5led itsNotice of Removalon May 3,2019,andPlaintlffstiled theirMotion to Remand on M ay 28,2019. In Civ.N o.PJM 19-1368, theBoard ofEducationtiled itsN oticeofRem ovalon M ay 9, 2019,and Plaintiffstiled theirMotion to Remand on June 4,2019. c. Cases Civ.No.PJM 19-706and Civ No.PJM 19-709 . On the otherhand,the M otionsto Remand in Civ. No.PJM 19-706 and Civ.No.PJM 19709 werenottimely fled. Title28U.S.C.j 1447(c),which govemstheprocedureafterremoval,states:tûA motion toremandthecaseonthebasisofanydefectotherthanlackofsubjectmatterjurisdictionmustbe madewithin30daysaierthetilingofthenoticeofremovalundersection1446(a).''TheGçgfjailure ofa11defendantstojoin in the removalpetition doesnotimplicatethe court'ssubjectmatter jurisdiction.Rather,itismerelyanerrorin theremovalprocess.Asaresult,aplaintiffwhofails tomakeatimelyobjection waivestheobjection.''Paynecxrel.Estateofcalzada v.Brake,439 F.3d l98,203 (4thCir.2006).Courtsmuststrictly adhereto this30-day deadline Almutairiv. . JohnsHopkinsHea1th Sys.Corp., 2016W L 97835(D.Md.2016). The Board ofEducation filed itsNotice ofRemovalin both ofthese cases on M arch 6, 2019,and therespectivePlaintiffsdid nottileaM otion to Remand untilJune24, 2019,m ore than 30dayslater.Even though theCourtinvited Plaintiffsto fileM otionsto Remand, Plaintiffswere already outoftime.Thus,by failing to file forrem and within 30 days, Plaintiffs,and for that matler,Carraway,waivedtheirrightto seek remandand acceptedthejurisdiction ofthefederal court.SeeJ'tzyad,439F.3d 198,203-204(4thCir.2006);SeealsoMillerexrel.EstateofDimasv . MorochoBrother'sConst,Inc.,2004W L 727040(M .D.N.C.2004)(sàtingplaintiffs,aswellas defendants who did notconsentto the rem oval, waived theirrightto rem and by nottiling for removalwithin 18U.S.C.j 1447(c)'s30-daydeadline). Thus,even though theremovalwasprocedurally defective,sincetheM otionsto Rem and werenottimely fled in Civ.No.PJM 19-706 and Civ.No.PJM 19-709,6theM otionsto Remand in these casesare DEN IED . Separate Orders willISSU E. ') 1 ? .. ,-- / e.'# 4.rv' U /îW '' î. /s/ ETER J.M ESSITTE TE STA TES DISTR ICT JUD G E - ' Septem ber 9,2019 6Plaintiffsalsoseektoremandonabstentionpounds.However,federalcourtsmayremandacasebasedonabstention principlesonlywherethereliefbeingsoughtisequitableordeclaratory.SeeQuackenbushv.Allstatelns.Co.,517 U.S.706,7l9(1996).Accordingly,becausePlaintiffsinthesecasesonlyseekmoneydamages,theCourtmaynot rem and onthebasisofabstention. 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.