Degross v. Office Depot Office Max

CourtDistrict Court, D. Maryland
DecidedMarch 10, 2023
Docket1:22-cv-00291
StatusUnknown

This text of Degross v. Office Depot Office Max (Degross v. Office Depot Office Max) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Degross v. Office Depot Office Max, (D. Md. 2023).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND * . KIMA.DEGROSS Plaintiff * □□ Civil Case No. JKB-22-0291 . * OFFICE DEPOT, LLC * Defendant _* . * * * * * * * * , * * * MEMORANDUM On March 9, 2022, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order dismissing the above-

captioned case. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff Kim Degross filed a-Motion to Reopen this case on November 10, 2022, which is now pending before the Court: (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff's Motion is fully briefed (ECF No. 12), and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion will be denied. Of Factual Background : .

Plaintiff is an African American male who began working for Defendant Office Depot, LLC (“Office Depot”) in 1998. (ECF No. 3 { 2.) Beginning in 2015, Plaintiff worked at an Office

- Depot facility in Howard County, Maryland as a driver. (id. 2-4.) Plaintiff alleges that he was

terminated by Cffice Depot because of a “false assertion” that he called his supervisor, Michael - Strotman, a “[mJaricon.” Ud. J 16, 18.) Plaintiff further alleges that, during his employment with

. Office Depot, a white employee named Timothy Beneay used a racial epithet against a Hispanic employee but was not similarly terminated or reprimanded by Office Depot. (/d. 15,17.) Apart

from these incidents, Plaintiff further alleges ‘that a person named Sharon Brewer made a false accusation about him, which was also a cause of his termination. (/d. {| 22-23.) Plaintiff's employment was terminated on November 13, 2017. (id. 98.) Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination: with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on January 24,2018. (Id. [9.) On September 6, 2019, the EEOC mailed Plaintiff a tight-to-sue □□□□□□ informing him of his right to file suit within 90 days of his receipt of the letter. (ECF No. 6-4.) I. Procedural History □

Prior to filing the instant case, Plaintiff filed a substantially similar pro se case in this Court on December 2, 2019 against Defendant, alleging: (1) discrimination and retaliation upon the basis of race, color, and religion in violation of Title VII; (2) defamation; (3) perjury; and (4) fraud. See Degross v. Office Depot Office Max, Civ. No. CCB-19-3445, at ECF No. 1 (D. Ma. 2019) (hereinafter, “Degross P, On February 24, 2020, Judge Blake dismissed Degross I without prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint that complied with Rule □□□□□ (Degross I, ECF No. 4.) After obtaining counsel, Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the dismissal, which Judge Blake granted on June 25, 2020. (Degross I, BCE No. 6.) Judge Blake then directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by August 10, 2020. (Degross I, ECF No. 7.) Because Plaintiff failed to do so, Judge Blake dismissed Degross J without prejudice on August. 20, 2020. (Degross J, ECF No. 8.) Plattiff then filed a motion to reopen Degross J and two motions for reconsideration, each of which Judge Blake denied for lack of good cause shown. □

(Degross I, ECF Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.) Plaintiff filed the instant case in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on December 10, 2021, (ECF No. 1.) In the instant Complaint, Plaintiff brings clatms for defamation and discrimination on the basis of race and religion. (ECF No. 3 {J 13~—25.) Plaintiffs claims, like

,

those in Degross [, relate to events that allegedly culminated in the termination of his employment Defendant. (Jd. 9] 2-12; Degross I, ECF No. 1.) On February 3, 2022, Defendant removed the instant case to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (ECF No. 1.) On February 10, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s Motion. The Court issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendant’s Motion on March 9, 2022. (ECF No. 10.) . Plaintiff filed, through counsel, a “Motion to Reopen” this case on November 10, 2022. (ECF No. 11.) Therein, Plaintiff states that “there was a filing for a Motion to Dismiss that wasn’t received by Plaintiff or [his] counsel.” (/d at 1.) Plaintiff requests “[t]hat the case be reopened so as to enable the necessary documents to be provided.” (/d.) In its opposition brief, Defendant counters that: (1) reopening this case is improper as Plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause for such relief; and (2) reopening this case is futile because it would not modify the issues raised in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss: namely, that Plaintiff's claims are time-barred and fail as a matter

_ of law. (ECF No. 12 at 3.) Wt. Legal Standard

Plaintiff does not provide a legal basis for his Motion to Reopen, but the Motion appears to seek reconsideration of the Court’s March 9, 2022 Memorandum and Order dismissing this case. The Fourth Circuit has explained that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly provide for a post-judgment motion for reconsideration; rather, “they provide for a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment or a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment.” Katyle v. Penn Nat’l Gaming Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 470 n.4 (4th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff s Motion was filed nearly eight months after this case’s dismissal. Thus, the Court considers whether reconsideration

of this case’s dismissal is proper under Rule 60(b), rather than Rule 59(e). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (providing that motions to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days □□□□□ entry of the judgment). Under Rule 60(b), a party may be granted relief from judgment on motion for the following reasons: (1) “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect”; (2) “newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b)”; (3) “fraud ..., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party”; (4) “the judgment is void”; (5) “the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it _is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable”; or (6) “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). It is well-settled that a Rule 60(b) motion is not a substitute for a timely and proper appeal. See Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 198 (1950). As such, before a party may seek relief under Rule 60(b), that party must first make a threshold showing of “timeliness, a meritorious defense, a lack of unfair prejudice to the opposing party, and exceptional circumstances.” Werner □ v. Carbo, 731 F.2d 204, 207 (4th Cir. 1984) (iting Compton v. Alton Steamship Co., 608 F.2d 96, 102 (4th Cir. 1979}). “Once the movant has made such a showing, he must proceed to satisfy one or more of the rule’s Six grounds for relief from judgment.” /d.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ackermann v. United States
340 U.S. 193 (Supreme Court, 1950)
Katyle v. Penn National Gaming, Inc.
637 F.3d 462 (Fourth Circuit, 2011)
Bobby Wayne Goff v. United States
659 F.2d 560 (Fifth Circuit, 1981)
Murray Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc.
667 F.2d 33 (Eleventh Circuit, 1982)
Marie McCray v. Maryland Dep't of Transportation
662 F. App'x 221 (Fourth Circuit, 2016)
Long v. Welch & Rushe, Inc.
28 F. Supp. 3d 446 (D. Maryland, 2014)
Bagwell v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center
665 A.2d 297 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1995)
Weathersbee v. Baltimore City Fire Department
970 F. Supp. 2d 418 (D. Maryland, 2013)
Werner v. Carbo
731 F.2d 204 (Fourth Circuit, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Degross v. Office Depot Office Max, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/degross-v-office-depot-office-max-mdd-2023.