Case 1:19-cv-03296-ADC Document 1 Filed 11/15/19 Page 1 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
–Northern Division–
MARSHALL TODMAN
2005 Magnolia Woods Ct.
Edgewood, MD 21040
and

Civil Action No.:

TIFFANY GATTIS
2005 Magnolia Woods Ct.
Edgewood, MD 21040,
Plaintiffs
–v–
THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
OF BALTIMORE
100 North Holliday Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
SERVICE ON:
CITY SOLICITOR: The Honorable
Andre M. Davis
City Hall- Department of Law
100 North Holliday Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
and
BROCK COLLINS
3806 Thoroughbred Lane
Owings Mills MD 21117,
Defendants.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

7056174.1

 Case 1:19-cv-03296-ADC Document 1 Filed 11/15/19 Page 2 of 18

Plaintiffs Marshall Todman and Tiffany Gattis sue the City of Baltimore
and their former landlord, Brock Collins. Plaintiffs state as follows:
Introduction
1. Plaintiffs challenge as unconstitutional the provisions of the Baltimore
City Housing Code that allowed Landlord Brock Collins to deprive Plaintiffs of
substantially all of their personal belongings—without prior notice or just
compensation. Plaintiffs, former tenants of Defendant Collins, had neatly
boxed up their possessions and were ready to move out of Defendant Collins’
rental property when Defendant Collins exploited two City laws that allow a
landlord to declare a tenant’s belongings to be “abandoned” and to do so
without notice, despite the fact that no reasonable person ever would view the
contents of freshly packed moving boxes to be “abandoned” in any legal or
customary sense.
2. In Baltimore City, all residential evictions are performed by the sheriff’s
office. The relevant provision of the Baltimore City Code does not provide any
mechanism for informing a tenant holding over with notice of a scheduled
eviction. The City Code also provides that at the time of the eviction, the
tenant’s belongings are conclusively deemed “abandoned” despite clear
evidence that the belongings are not ownerless. BALTIMORE, MD., CITY CODE
ART. 13, § 8A-4.

2
7056174.1

 Case 1:19-cv-03296-ADC Document 1 Filed 11/15/19 Page 3 of 18

3. The Defendant landlord in this case invoked § 8A-4 to have the
Baltimore City Sherriff’s office unexpectedly evict Plaintiffs a day before they
were scheduled to voluntarily move out of their home. Defendant Collins
undertook this action after having been present at a court hearing weeks
earlier where Plaintiffs announced their intentions to move out on August 2,
2019.
4. On July 31, 2019, Defendant Collins seized all of Plaintiffs’ personal
property and demanded exorbitant funds for the property’s return. Plaintiffs
could not pay. Thus, as a result of the City’s unconstitutional ordinances,
Plaintiffs lost all of their property; not just expensive electronics and kitchen
equipment, but irreplaceable family heirlooms, like the ashes of Plaintiff
Gattis’ great grandfather, original (and sole copies) of family photos, and the
American flag presented to Plaintiff Gattis’s family at her grandfather’s
funeral.
Parties
5. Plaintiffs are adult citizens of Maryland.
6. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (“Defendant Baltimore City”)
is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State
of Maryland.
7. Defendant Brock Collins is a Maryland resident who regularly carries
on business in Baltimore City as the owner of residential rental properties in
3
7056174.1

 Case 1:19-cv-03296-ADC Document 1 Filed 11/15/19 Page 4 of 18

the City. In Baltimore City alone, Defendant owns at least seven rental
properties (none of which are registered with the Baltimore City Commissioner
of Housing and Community Development as required under BALTIMORE, MD.,
CITY CODE ART. 13, § 4-2).
Jurisdiction and Venue
8. Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Baltimore City are brought under
the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to redress the deprivation of
Plaintiffs’ federal constitutional rights by the City of Baltimore under
BALTIMORE, MD., CITY CODE ART. 13, § 8A-4. Accordingly, this Court has
subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343.
9. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims against
Defendant Collins under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Maryland law provides that any
claim involving the validity of an ordinance must include the relevant local
government as a defendant. MD. CODE, CTS. & JUD. PROC., § 3-405 (b).
Accordingly, including Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Collins in this
action is appropriate here because Defendant Baltimore City would have to be
named in any other lawsuit against Defendant Collins, creating a potential
risk of inconsistent outcomes.
10. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

4
7056174.1

 Case Document 1 Filed 11/15/19 Page 5 of 18

The Rental of the Property

11.Plaintift's were tenants of a property belonging to Defendant Collins
located at -- (the
"Property").

12. Plaintiffs rental of the Property was for their own personal use as a
home.

13.Plaintift's and Defendant Collins had an oral lease, in violation of MD.
CODE, REAL PROP. 8208(a), which requires that landlords such as Defendant
Collins who ofifer five or more dwelling units for rent in Maryland to use a
written lease.

14. Soon after they moved into the Property, Defendant Collins urged
Plaintiffs to move to one of his less desirable properties. After about nine
months of Defendant's urging Plaintiffs to move to another of his rental units,
Plaintiffs decided to simply move out of the Property and sever their landlords
tenant relationship with Defendant. Plaintiffs arranged to move into a new
rental property by August 2, 2019.

15. In the meantime, Defendant Collins filed a tenant holding over action
against Plaintiffs, claiming that the lease was and that
Defendant Collins had terminated the lease. A hearing occurred on July 2,

2013, in the District Court ofMaryland (the "Hearing").



Case 1:19-cv-03296-ADC Document 1 Filed 11/15/19 Page 6 of 18

The Law of Residential Evictions in Baltimore City
16. Since 2013, Maryland has prohibited non-judicial evictions for
residential tenancies. MD. CODE, REAL PROP. § 8–216. Unless the tenant
voluntarily vacates the property, an eviction may be conducted only “[i]n
accordance with a warrant of restitution issued by a court and executed by a
sheriff or constable.” § 8–216(b)(2)(i).
17. A landlord who is allegedly entitled to possession of a property, whether
through the tenant’s non-payment of rent, breach of lease, or refusal to vacate
the property at the expiration of the lease, can file an action seeking possession
in the District Court for the county where the property is located. If the
landlord prevails at trial, the District Court will issue an order granting the
landlord possession, which gives the landlord the ability to then file a petition
for warrant of restitution.
18. A warrant of restitution directs the sheriff’s office to schedule and
perform an eviction. In Baltimore City, the landlord has up to 60 days to file a
petition for warrant of restitution with the District Court of Maryland after
the landlord prevails at trial. BALTIMORE, MD., PUBLIC LOCAL LAWS § 9-6. If the
petition is granted, the landlord then brings the warrant of restitution to the
Baltimore City Sheriff’s Office, which then schedules an eviction date, typically
for a few weeks later.

6
7056174.1

 Case 1:19-cv-03296-ADC Document 1 Filed 11/15/19 Page 7 of 18

19. In general, once the eviction is scheduled, BALTIMORE, MD., CITY CODE
ART. 13, § 8A-2 requires the landlord to give notice to the tenant of the pending
eviction date, including by mail at least 14 days prior to the scheduled eviction
and by posting on the property at least 7 days prior to the scheduled eviction.
Among other things, the required notice must “prominently warn the tenant
that any property left in the leased dwelling will be considered abandoned and
may be disposed of on execution of the warrant of restitution.” § 8A-2 (d)(4).
20. For reasons that are not apparent (or constitutional), Baltimore City has
excluded from any notice requirements several kinds of evictions, including
tenant holding over actions. § 8A-2 (a)(2)(iii).
21. Nevertheless, even though they are not given the warning that their
belongings are in jeopardy or even notice of the eviction date, the Baltimore
City Code still provides that the belongings of tenants holding over who are
evicted are deemed “abandoned,” and that the landlord may dispose of them at
will and without liability to the tenant. § 8A-4.
22. Tenants are never given an opportunity, either before or after their
property is confiscated, to rebut the City’s forced presumption that they have
abandoned their property.

7
7056174.1

 Case 1:19-cv-03296-ADC Document 1 Filed 11/15/19 Page 8 of 18

The July 2, 2019 Hearing
23. On July 2, 2019, in the tenant holding over action, both Plaintiffs and
Defendant Collins were present and appeared before a Judge in the District
Court of Maryland sitting in Baltimore City.
24. The Judge started the Hearing by asking whether the parties had been
able to discuss a possible agreement. Plaintiffs informed the Judge that they
had secured a new rental home and could move into to their new home on
August 2, 2019.
25. The Judge then asked Defendant Collins whether he would agree to a
stay of the matter until August 2, 2019, to which Defendant Collins replied
that he was concerned that if there was a stay until August 2, 2019, and the
Plaintiffs did not leave the Property when they said they would, it would take
him several additional weeks to evict them.
26. The Judge then mentioned to Defendant Collins that if Plaintiffs agreed
to a stay of two weeks, any eviction would likely be scheduled at least two
additional weeks from the date any warrant of restitution would be issued.
Defendant Collins expressed skepticism, complaining that “the way the sheriff
is running, if you push it out two weeks, it’s not going to be August 2.”
27. The Judge responded that if she stayed the judgment for two weeks, she
was sure that he would file for a warrant of restitution on July 17 after the

8
7056174.1

 Case 1:19-cv-03296-ADC Document 1 Filed 11/15/19 Page 9 of 18

stay lifted, and thus would have an eviction scheduled for shortly after August
2.
28. Based on that, the parties seemed to express a willingness to agree to a
two-week stay. The Judge summarized: “My understanding is that Mr.
Todman and Ms. Gattis are consenting to a judgment and the stay of execution
will be until the 16th of July, at which point it would still take at least two
weeks to schedule an eviction[,] therefore you would still have your full month
before you would be evicted, is that correct?” The parties agreed.
29. Right before the Hearing concluded, Defendant Collins asked the Judge
whether he could file for the warrant of restitution on July 16 or had to wait
until July 17. The Judge said Defendant Collins would have to talk to the
clerks, at which point Defendant Collins stated, “I’ll do it the 17th.”
30. At no point during the Hearing or otherwise did the Judge or Defendant
Collins mention to Plaintiffs that in the event an eviction were to be scheduled
for earlier than August 2, 2019, under § 8A-4, Plaintiffs would not be notified
of when the eviction would occur and that all of Plaintiffs’ personal property at
the Property at the time of the eviction would be deemed abandoned.
The Lead-up to the Eviction
31. Plaintiffs confirmed a move-in date for their new apartment of August
1, 2019 – a day earlier than they stated their moving date could be during the

9
7056174.1

 Case 1:19-cv-03296-ADC Document 1 Filed 11/15/19 Page 10 of 18

Hearing. Plaintiffs packed up their belongings and rented a moving truck for
their planned move on August 1, 2019.
32. Yet Defendant Collins, in contradiction to his statement during the
Hearing that he would wait until July 17, 2019, to schedule an eviction, filed a
petition for warrant of restitution on July 15, 2019.
33. Despite the fact that this violated the stay that the Judge ordered until
July 16, 2019, the District Court of Maryland accepted the filing and issued a
warrant of restitution on July 16, 2019, directing the sheriff to schedule an
eviction.
34. Contrary to the expectations of the Judge and the statements of
Defendant Collins at the Hearing, the Baltimore City Sheriff’s Office moved
forward expeditiously, scheduling the eviction for July 31, 2019.
35. Defendant Collins was informed by the Sheriff’s Office of the date for
the eviction and knew that this was earlier than Plaintiffs expected, but
provided Plaintiffs with no notice that the eviction had been scheduled.
36. Plaintiffs were left unaware that the eviction was scheduled two days
earlier than they had been discussed at the Hearing and that by virtue of the
City Code, all of their worldly belongings would be deemed abandoned.
The Eviction
37. On the morning of July 31, 2019, one day before their planned move,
Plaintiffs went to work as normal. Defendant Collins arrived at the Property
10
7056174.1

 Case 1:19-cv-03296-ADC Document 1 Filed 11/15/19 Page 11 of 18

with a Sheriff around 10:00 a.m. The only person home was Plaintiff Gattis’
ailing mother, who was told to leave the house and sit on a neighbor’s porch.
38. Despite the obvious appearance of tenants planning to move all of their
belongings out of the Property, the Baltimore City Sherriff oversaw the eviction
and allowed Defendant to exercise dominion over Plaintiffs’ property by
changing the locks on the Property.
39. Additionally, Defendant Collins grabbed Plaintiff Todman’s Yamaha
motorcycle that had been parked on the street and dragged it onto the
Property, inserted a wheel-locking mechanism, chained it to a tree, and
claimed that it too now belonged to him because motorcycle was “in or about”
the Property and thus deemed abandoned under § 8A-4.
40. Plaintiffs rushed home from work when they learned of the eviction, but
by that time the locks were already changed. Defendant Collins texted
Plaintiffs, claiming that he now owned all of their belongings, despite the fact
that Plaintiffs’ belongings were packed in boxes, clearly ready to be moved, and
could not be reasonably believed to have been intentionally abandoned by
Plaintiffs.
41. Plaintiffs demanded the return of their belongings on multiple
occasions, but were refused by Defendant Collins.
42. Instead, Defendant Collins demanded that Plaintiffs pay him thousands
of dollars for their property. When Plaintiffs could not come up with the
11
7056174.1

 Case 1:19-cv-03296-ADC Document 1 Filed 11/15/19 Page 12 of 18

amounts demanded, Defendant Collins told them they must not want their
belongings back and ceased communication.
43. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have been deprived, presumably permanently, of
the vast majority of their personal property, including, among other things,
irreplaceable pictures, documents and keepsakes, as well as clothing,
electronics, and furniture.
44. Plaintiffs also suffered humiliation, discomfort, and distress as a result
of their mistreatment by Defendant Collins and the unconstitutional
ordinances that he exploited.
COUNT ONE
Damages Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Defendant Baltimore City)
45. The allegations set forth in all previous paragraphs are incorporated
herein by reference.
46. The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution guarantee that no person shall be deprived of
property without due process of law.
47. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of
personal property without a valid public purpose and without just
compensation. The Takings Clause applies to Baltimore City through the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

12
7056174.1

 Case 1:19-cv-03296-ADC Document 1 Filed 11/15/19 Page 13 of 18

48. BALTIMORE, MD., CITY CODE ART. 13, § 8A-4, which strips many evicted
residential tenants of their property without any prior notice of the
consequences of eviction, acts to deprive tenants of their property without due
process of law. The ordinance, with regard to the classes of tenants who do not
receive any prior notice of the consequences of eviction nor the dates of a
scheduled eviction, is facially unconstitutional. Additionally, the ordinance is
unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs.
49. In addition, application of the City ordinance, which has the effect of
conclusively deeming property to be abandoned and up for grabs by landlords,
constitutes a taking. No valid public purpose is served by destroying tenants’
property interests in their personal belongings, particularly when the tenants’
intentions to maintain their ownership interests in that property is
undeniable. The fact that the City does not appropriate the property for itself,
but rather allows landlords to exercise complete dominion over the property
does not remove the ordinance from the reach of the Takings Clause. To the
contrary, forcing tenants to give up their property rights so that other private
parties may gain those rights exacerbates the constitutional violation.
50. “Abandonment” in property law means the voluntary relinquishment or
renunciation of a property right, or an ownership vacuum resulting from the
owner's death without heirs or a valid will. The City’s distortion of this common
law concept effects a taking of personal property subject to the Fifth
13
7056174.1

 Case 1:19-cv-03296-ADC Document 1 Filed 11/15/19 Page 14 of 18

Amendment. The City cannot sidestep the Takings Clause by disavowing or
redefining traditional property interests.
51. BALTIMORE, MD., CITY CODE ART. 13, § 8A-4 is an ordinance that was
officially adopted and promulgated by Defendant Baltimore City.
52. Plaintiffs have been deprived of the vast majority of their worldly
belongings as a direct result of BALTIMORE, MD., CITY CODE ART. 13, § 8A-4,
which operated to deem their belongings “abandoned” and purported to absolve
Defendant Collins from any liability to Plaintiffs regarding their belongings.
53. Accordingly, Defendant Baltimore City has deprived, or caused to be
deprived, Plaintiffs of their rights secured by the Due Process Clause and
Takings Clause under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution under color of law, and is liable for the damages suffered
by Plaintiffs as a result.
COUNT TWO
Declaratory Judgment
(All Defendants)
54. The allegations set forth in all prior paragraphs are incorporated herein
by reference.
55. Upon information and belief, Defendant Collins may still retain certain
items of personal property belonging to Plaintiffs, purportedly retaining
ownership of those items by operation of BALTIMORE, MD., CITY CODE ART. 13,
§ 8A-4.
14
7056174.1

 Case 1:19-cv-03296-ADC Document 1 Filed 11/15/19 Page 15 of 18

56. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek declaration that BALTIMORE, MD., CITY CODE
ART. 13, § 8A-4 is invalid as contrary to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the Constitution of the United States.
COUNT THREE
Conversion
(Defendant Collins)
57. The allegations set forth in all prior paragraphs are incorporated herein
by reference.
58. Defendant Collins intended to exercise and did exercise control over
Plaintiffs’ personal property.
59. Defendant Collins’ exercise of control over Plaintiffs’ property was
unlawful for several reasons: First, BALTIMORE, MD., CITY CODE ART. 13, § 8A4, facially and as applied in this case, is unconstitutional because it deprives
tenants of their property without Due Process and effects a taking without just
compensation and without a valid public purpose. Second, Defendant Collins
was aware that Plaintiffs believed that any eviction would not occur until after
August 2, 2019, and indeed contributed to that belief from his statements
during the Hearing, yet proceeded with the eviction without giving Plaintiffs
prior notice.
60. By retaining Plaintiffs’ belongings without legal justification, Defendant
Collins engaged in a conversion of Plaintiffs’ belongings.

15
7056174.1

 Case 1:19-cv-03296-ADC Document 1 Filed 11/15/19 Page 16 of 18

61. Further, Defendant Collins committed a particularly egregious
conversion when he moved Plaintiff Todman’s motorcycle and claimed that it
was deemed abandoned under the City Code.
62. In

converting

Plaintiffs’

belongings

without

legal

justification,

Defendant Collins acted maliciously, willfully and wantonly and with reckless
disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs, for his own benefit, intending to punish
Plaintiffs for perceived slights against him.
63. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant Collins’ conduct,
Plaintiffs sustained the losses and damages set forth above.
COUNT FOUR
Violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act
(Defendant Collins)
64. The allegations set forth in all previous paragraphs are incorporated
herein by reference.
65. The Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”) prohibits the use of
any unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices in connection with, among
other things, the rental of residential property. The MCPA includes in the
definition of unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices the “[f]ailure to state
a material fact if the failure deceives or tends to deceive.” MD. CODE, COMM. L.
§ 13-301(3).
66. Because Defendant Collins was aware that due to the Hearing, the
Plaintiffs believed that no eviction would occur before August 2, 2019, and
16
7056174.1

 Case 1:19-cv-03296-ADC Document 1 Filed 11/15/19 Page 17 of 18

indeed his own statements during the Hearing contributed to that belief,
Defendant Collins’ failure to inform Plaintiffs of the material fact that an
eviction was scheduled for two days earlier is a violation of the MCPA.
67. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant Collins’ conduct in
violation of the MCPA, Plaintiffs sustained the losses and damages set forth
above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand the following relief jointly and
severally, against all Defendants:
A. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but
no less than $100,000.00;
B. A declaratory judgment that BALTIMORE, MD., CITY CODE ART. 13, §
8A-4

is

unconstitutional

under

the

Fifth

and

Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution;
C. Attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 with regard to
Defendant Baltimore City and pursuant to MD. CODE, COMM. L. § 13408 (b) with regard to Defendant Collins; and
D. Costs, and such other and further relief as this Court may deed
appropriate under the circumstances.
Further, Plaintiffs demand the following relief from Defendant Collins:
E. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but no less
than $50,000.00.
17
7056174.1

 Case 1:19-cv-03296-ADC Document 1 Filed 11/15/19 Page 18 of 18

JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiffs demand a
trial by jury as to all issues so triable in this action.
Dated:

November 15, 2019

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Joseph S. Mack

Joseph S. Mack
(D. Md. Bar No. 29021)
THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH S. MACK
PO Box 65066
Baltimore, MD 21209
(443) 423-0464
joseph@macklawonline.com

/s/ Conor B. O'Croinin

Conor B. O'Croinin
(D. Md. Bar No. 28099)
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440
Baltimore, MD 21202
(410) 332-0444
cocroinin@zuckerman.com

/s/ Megan S. McKoy

Megan S. McKoy
(D. Md. Bar No. 20939)
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
1800 M Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 778-1848
mmckoy@zuckerman.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Marshall
Todman, Jr. and Tiffany Gattis

18
7056174.1