Trugreen Limited Partnership v. Allegis Global Solutions, Inc.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

TRUGREEN LIMITED * PARTNERSHIP, * Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, * v. Civil Action No. RDB-20-0335 * ALLEGIS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., *

Defendant/Counter Claimant. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM ORDER On February 7, 2020, Plaintiff TruGreen Limited Partnership (“TruGreen” or “Plaintiff”) brought a five-count suit against Defendant Allegis Global Solutions, Inc. (“AGS” or “Defendant”) alleging breach of contract as well as other state law torts. (See ECF Nos. 1, 32 *SEALED*.) On March 13, 2020, AGS asserted its own claim for breach of contract against TruGreen with the filing of a single-count Counterclaim. (See ECF No. 16.) On February 18, 2021, this Court held an audio motions hearing on AGS’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 38) and Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (ECF No. 25). (Feb. 18, 2021 Tr., ECF No. 75.) On the record at the hearing, this Court granted AGS’s Motion to Dismiss with respect to Counts II through V of the Amended Complaint and denied the Motion with respect to Count I of the Amended Complaint as well as with respect to AGS’s request that this Court enter an order barring TruGreen from recovering any damages arising from its claims. (Letter Order, ECF No. 71) This Court elaborated on its rulings in a Memorandum Opinion dated February 23, 2021. (Memorandum Opinion, ECF No. 74.) Now pending before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Defer Consideration of Defendant’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 113.) The parties’ submissions have been reviewed, and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the reasons

that follow, TruGreen’s Motion to Defer (ECF No. 113) is GRANTED. AGS’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 108) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, subject to renewal at the close of discovery. BACKGROUND This Court summarized Plaintiffs’ allegations in its Memorandum Opinion of February 23, 2021. (ECF No. 74). In short, Plaintiff TruGreen is a Delaware limited liability

partnership in the business of lawn care and pest control with its principal place of business in Memphis, Tennessee. (ECF No. 32 ¶ 1 *SEALED*.) Defendant AGS is a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business in Hanover, Maryland and is a purported leader in “global talent solutions.” (Id. ¶ 2 *SEALED*.) TrueGreen alleges that it hired AGS to perform Recruitment Process Outsourcing (“RPO”) services. (Id. ¶ 7 *SEALED*.) Upon selecting AGS as its RPO, TruGreen and AGS entered into a contract pursuant

to which AGS undertook to provide talent procurement services for TruGreen. (Id. ¶ 2 *SEALED*.) The contract between the Parties is the Recruitment Processing Outsourcing Agreement, dated November 1, 2018 (“RPOA” or the “Agreement”, filed as ECF No. 14-1 *SEALED*). (ECF No. 32 ¶ 5 *SEALED*.) TruGreen asserts that AGS “failed miserably” to perform under the terms of the RPOA. (Id. ¶ 18 *SEALED*.) TruGreen asserts that as a result of AGS’s material breach of the RPOA, it has suffered incidental and compensatory

damages. (Id. ¶ 21 *SEALED*.) TruGreen filed suit against AGS on February 7, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) On July 2, 2020, TruGreen filed an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 32 *SEALED*.) Count I of TruGreen’s Amended Complaint alleges a breach of contract claim against AGS. (Id. ¶¶ 25-35 *SEALED*.) On March 13, 2020, Defendant AGS filed a single-

count Counterclaim against TruGreen. (ECF. No. 16.) AGS alleges that TruGreen materially breached its duty to cooperate in the implementation and performance of the RPOA. After this Court issued its Letter Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, this case proceeded as to Count I of the Amended Complaint and as to Defendant’s counterclaim. On October 5, 2021, this Court issued a

Second Modified Scheduling Order, which set a deadline of April 22, 2022 for the completion of fact discovery. (ECF No. 107.) On November 17, 2021, AGS filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 108.) On November 23, 2021, TruGreen filed a Motion to Defer Consideration of AGS’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 113.)

ANALYSIS In its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, AGS asks this Court to rule as a matter of law that it is entitled to a $350,000.00 termination fee as well as $1,015,403.22 in unpaid invoices. (ECF No. 108.) AGS also asks this Court to rule that TruGreen’s alleged damages are barred by the terms of the Agreement. (Id.) In its Motion to Defer, TruGreen argues that AGS’s motion is premature in light of this Court’s comments on the record at the February 18, 2021 motions hearing1 and its subsequent Memorandum Order. “Ordinarily, summary judgment is inappropriate without the opportunity for

‘reasonable discovery.’” Josiah v. Advanced Behavioral Health, Inc., Civil Action No. PX 18- 0004, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126586, at *8 (D. Md. July 30, 2018) (citing Sager v. Hous. Comm’n of Anne Arundel Cty., 855 F. Supp. 2d 524, 542 (D. Md. 2012)). This case is still in its early stages. The record reflects that as of December 2021, the parties were actively litigating discovery matters before Magistrate Judge Coulson of this Court. (See ECF Nos. 131, 130, 128, 127, 126, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119.) Fact discovery is not set to close until April 22,

2022, over five months from when AGS filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 107.) In addition, dispositive motions are not due until September 9, 2022. (Id.) Accordingly, this Court will DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AGS’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 108), subject to renewal at the close of discovery. This Court will also GRANT TruGreen’s Motion to Defer (ECF No. 113.)

1 At the hearing, this Court noted that “damages . . . will be addressed at the trial of this case.” (ECF No. 75 at 58.) This Court also informed the parties that it “will determine what issues of damages will or will not be submitted to the jury on this.” (Id. at 59.) Finally, this Court stated that “either side is free to argue freely with respect to damages . . . and it’s very likely that it will get to a jury and the jury is going to have to determine some of this.” (Id. at 77.) CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, it is HEREBY ORDERED this 25th day of January, 2022 that Defendant AGS’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 108) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and Plaintiff TruGreen’s Motion to Defer (ECF No.

113) is GRANTED. _______/s/_______ Richard D. Bennett United States District Judge