IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND MARGUERITE R. MORRIS * Plainti’, * Case No. C-02-CV- 19-003 135 V. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND, et a1. Defendants MEMORANDUM Before the Court is the Defendants Altomare, Teare, Davis, Carbonaro, Clark and Polle ’s Motion to Dismiss and/orfor Summary Judgment and, Defendant Anne Amndel County, Maryland ’s Motion to Dismiss and/orfor Summary Judgment. Both motions were led November 15, 2019. Plaintiff led a Response to the rst Motion along with a Memorandum on December 4, 2019. A hearing was held on both motions on January 27, 2020 where the Court heard argument from all parties. The Court concludes that both motions should be grantedl and this Memorandum explains the reasons. Separate orders will be entered. Background Plaintiff on October 3, 2019, led and six police ofcials or ofcers. a Complaint against Anne Arundel County Plaintiff at the hearing on January 27,2020 raised an oral motion to strike the response led by the individual defendants on January 21, 2020 because it did not provide her sufcient time to further respond to defendants’ arguments and lings. After hearing the full arguments of the parties, the Court concludes that the oral motion should not be granted and a separate order will be entered denying that 1 motion. 1 The Complaint concerns the investigation done by the police department concerning the tragic death of Plaintiff’s daughter, Katherine Morris, on May 6, 2012. The police investigation concluded that the death was an act of suicide by Katherine Morris. Plaintiff has consistently and persistently contested this nding. Plaintiff in her Complaint states that for seven years she “has alleged a less than stellar investigation into the death” of her daughter. 11 13. She alleges that there are “a series of serious investigative errors [that] were revealed on the part of the Defendants” and she alleges there was “an ensuing cover-up, and someone in authority issued an order to reinvestigate but made sure the original suicide nding stayed the original nding, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.” Id. Plaintiff’s Complaint is 191 pages and contains 390 separate paragraphs. Filed with the Complaint are 177 exhibits attached to the Complaint. Plaintiff raises the following counts: Count One-Libel Count Two —Defamation Per Se Count Three—Intentional Iniction of Emotional Distress Count Four—Fraud Count Five—Conspiracy The only remedy ultimately sought by Plaintiff is an award of damages to her personally for actual and punitive damages to be paid by the Defendants. See 1m 389,390. Motions to Dismiss Defendant Anne Arundel County moved the Court to dismiss the Complaint against it on the basis that it is a governmental entity and immune from liability. The County argues that the Complaint makes clear that it is being sued for its actions performing a governmental function, namely its performing the policing and public safety functions of investigating a death in its jurisdiction. Citing Paulone v. City ofFrederick, 787 F. Supp. 2d 360, 378 (D. Md. 201 l) and Livesay v. Baltimore County, 384 Md. l, 20 (2004), the County asserts that tort claims based on Maryland law must proceed against individual employees. The County claims there has been no waiver of its governmental immunity that would allow the Plaintiff to proceed against it. Plaintiff does not appear to argue to the contrary as far as to whether the County can remain as a party to the case. The Court nds the County’s arguments persuasive and an order will be signed granting its motion. The six individual Defendants have also led a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Defendants argue that the Statute of Limitations greatly limits any claims that could possibly be considered against the individual Defendants. Defendants argue that since Maryland has a general three-year statute of limitations for tort actions that any incident occurring before October 3, 2016 would be barred. Further, there being a one-year statute of limitations for the libel and defamation claims would limit those claims only to actions taken after October 3, 201 8. These arguments are made at pages 3 to 6 of their Memorandum. The Plaintiff argues that the discovery rule should alter when the statute should begin to run. Plaintiff concedes however that she and her family were on notice of the concerns they had about the police investigation beginning the week of May 10, 2012 which quickly escalated immediately thereafter given the response of the police to their concerns. See Plaintiff’s reply memorandum at page 2 to 3. The Court nds the arguments of the Defendants more persuasive and agrees with them that they prevent the Plaintiff om reviving any claims that could have been made before the statutes began to run. The individual Defendants further contend that under the law a private citizen, even the greatly aggrieved relative of a deceased individual, does not have standing to pursue a claim against public ofcials or employees to investigate or prosecute a matter in a certain way that the citizen would nd to be appropriate. Defendants cited numerous cases to support this conclusion at page 6 of their memorandum and it does appear to the Court to be the current state of Maryland law. Indeed in her reply memorandum, Plaintiff states that her goal with the case is to vindicate the “right” of citizens to have a thorough investigation done by the police. See page 20 of the reply memorandum. The Court agrees with the individual Defendants that this Complaint is grounded on the erroneous View that Plaintiff can obtain damages because of her View that the investigation of the death of her daughter was not investigated in the fashion she believes it should have been done. This assertion does not comport with current Maryland law. The individual Defendants also argue that Counts 1 and 2 , the libel and defamation claims would in any event fail since the statements relied on by Plaintiff that arguably could fall within the allowable period under the statute of limitations do not in any way show that they are actionable for the Plaintiff since she is not reasonably the subj ect or the person to whom the message is directed and she can not demonstrate how as a matter of law she can be shown to have suffered money damages that are recognized under the law. The Court agrees. Count 4, the fraud claim, also fails since Plaintiff does not allege that she relied on any supposed misrepresentation by these defendants which is an essential element of a fraud claim. One thing is clear in the Complaint and in Plaintiff’ s argument before the Court: She has not relied on any representations made by these defendants in many years. It also appears that the supposed false representations cited were not made to the Plaintiff but to other persons so another element of a fraud claim is not present. Count 3, Intentional Iniction of Emotional Distress, must also be dismissed since Plaintiff has not alleged that the individual Defendants conduct was extreme and outrageous as required in Maryland law. See Manikhi v. Mass Transit Admin, 360 Md. 333 (2000). For conduct to be extreme and 4 outrageous it must go beyond all possible bounds of decency and. . .be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Kohler v. Shenasky, 914 F. Supp. 1208, 1212 (D. Md. 1995); Ford v. Douglas, 144 Md. App. 620 (2002). Here a fair reading of the Complaint indicates that Plaintiff asserts that the defendants have failed to agree with her positions about the investigation of her daughter’s death and that they have unreasonably in her View not been open to revise their determinations about the circumstances and cause of her daughter’s death. Defendants actions even as described in Plaintiff’s complaint do not rise to the level necessary to sustain this Count. Count 5, the Conspiracy count, must also fail. As defendants note the Complaint does not contain any facts to suggest or reasonably imply that some type of anpunlawful agreement exists to cover up the truth about the death of Plaintiff’s daughter in some unlawful fashion. The Defendants have persisted in their conclusions about the tragic death of Plaintiff’s daughter was likely a suicide but that is a far cry from any demonstration that there was or is an unlawful conspiracy directed toward damaging this Plaintiff. For all of the above reasonsz, the individual Defendants motion should be granted. Separate orders will be entered to conform with this Memorandum. Dennisg/Sweeney Senior 2 ircuit Cou Judge The individual Defendants also argue that the Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff did not timely provide timely notice of her claim for damages under the Maryland Local Government Tort Claims Act. This appears to be correct for the reasons stated by the Defendants in their reply memorandum and would provide still another basis for the dismissal of this Complaint.