17 results for 'judge:"Boardman"'.
J. Boardman grants the airline’s motion to dismiss for a lack of personal jurisdiction in personal injury case brought by a consumer who was injured while disembarking. The airline is not based out of Maryland, specific jurisdiction cannot be established under the long-arm statute, and exercising jurisdiction does not align with the requirements of due process. The court does not have the authority to proceed with this case.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Boardman, Filed On: August 5, 2024, Case #: 8:23cv3066, NOS: Airplane - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Negligence, Jurisdiction, Premises Liability
J. Boardman denies a pharmaceutical company’s motion to dismiss in this unjust enrichment lawsuit brought by a husband on behalf of his wife’s estate alleging the company had been using her cancer cells to make medicines and treatments without her consent. The husband alleges the company has benefited financially from the unauthorized use and commercialized of the cells taken depriving the estate from compensation. The claim seeks disgorgement of the company’s profits, an injunction against further use, and the establishment of a constructive trust in favor of the estate.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Boardman, Filed On: May 20, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv2171, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Civil Procedure, Tort, Injunction
J. Boardman denies the Trustee of the bankruptcy estate’s motion to dismiss this bankruptcy appeal. The court dismisses a compensation order for lack of jurisdiction, vacates the bankruptcy court’s denial of motion to dismiss, and remands the case back to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings. The bankruptcy court abused its discretion in denying the consumer’s motion to dismiss.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Boardman, Filed On: April 15, 2024, Case #: 8:23cv3135, NOS: Bankruptcy Appeal 28 USC 158 - Bankruptcy, Categories: Bankruptcy, Civil Procedure, Jurisdiction
J. Boardman denies a loan originator and a third-party lender’s motion to compel arbitration in this contract dispute brought by a class of consumers. The class seeks damages and declaration the loan agreements are void and not enforceable. The originator and lender’s seek arbitration under the arbitration clause. The promise in the arbitration policy is illusory and the contract is not enforceable.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Boardman, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 8:23cv2156, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Arbitration, Banking / Lending, Contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Boardman grants a biotechnology firm’s motion to dismiss this RICO and fraud lawsuit that alleges the maker funneled kickbacks to pharmacies who referred patients to expensive medical services for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. United Healthcare has not plausibly alleged the scheme continued after January 2014, failed to plead the indirect purchasing rule and its mail and wire fraud allegations are not pleaded in detail. Therefore, the claims are time-barred and dismissed with prejudice.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Boardman, Filed On: March 25, 2024, Case #: 8:22cv2948, NOS: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) - Other Suits, Categories: Fraud, Health Care, Racketeering
J. Boardman grants, in part, summary judgment in favor of the Food and Drug Administration, its commissioner and a technology company in this Freedom of Information Act claim brought by two other firms. The firms alleged the FDA is improperly withholding the tech company’s emergency use request. The court finds the disclosure is protected by exemption four and precluded by the Trade Secret Act. Summary judgment is granted to the government on all but three copies of the communication between the FDA and the tech company. The two firms’ request to open discovery is denied.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Boardman, Filed On: February 21, 2024, Case #: 8:23cv489, NOS: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) - Other Suits, Categories: Public Record, Discovery
J. Boardman dismisses this employment dispute in favor of the Maryland human services department alleging disability discrimination, retaliation and FMLA violation by a former employee. The employee alleges that, when he was out on FMLA, a supervisor requested him to come into the office and terminated him, interfering with his leave. He fails to plausibly allege he is entitled to judgment on the basis of disability or an adverse reaction. The motion for discovery is denied as moot, but the employee may provide a proposed amended complaint.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Boardman, Filed On: February 13, 2024, Case #: 8:23cv1577, NOS: Amer w/Disabilities-Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Ada / Rehabilitation Act, Employment Discrimination, Employment Retaliation
J. Boardman grants four nonprofit environmental organizations’ motion to lift the stay and their motion to admit extra-record evidence against several environmental agencies and petroleum companies in this environmental claim stemming from violations of the Administrative Procedures Act related to the impact of oil and gas drilling on endangered species. The agencies and companies have not showed clear or convincing consideration for a stay and the extra evidence declaration qualifies for the exceptions clarifying technical information. The organizations’ motion for remand without vacatur is denied.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Boardman, Filed On: January 9, 2024, Case #: 8:20cv3060, NOS: Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision - Other Suits, Categories: Energy, Environment, Experts
J. Boardman grants a general contractor’s motion to dismiss a subcontractor’s counterclaim in this Miller Act dispute claiming a breach of subcontract for not paying under the agreement. The general contractor alleges damages for delay, base contract work and change in work per the contract. The subcontractor fails to prove or allege that the contract was satisfied. The subcontractor fails to offer any request or a proper memorandum to support their motion. Therefore, the motion to dismiss the general contractor’s crossclaims is denied.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Boardman, Filed On: December 20, 2023, Case #: 8:22cv2789, NOS: Miller Act - Contract, Categories: Construction, Contract
J. Boardman denies a subcontractor’s motion to dismiss a surety’s third-party complaint in this Miller Act claim for contractual indemnification as unripe. Under the indemnification agreement liability cannot be transferred to subcontractor to enforce the Miller Act and the prevention doctrine is considered a non sequitur. The court cannot determine at this stage if the claims in fact are covered by the indemnification agreements.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Boardman, Filed On: December 20, 2023, Case #: 8:22cv2789, NOS: Miller Act - Contract, Categories: Construction, Indemnification, Contract
J. Boardman grants summary judgment to Subaru on a renter’s product liability claims alleging that his left hand was severely injured when the Subaru Outback he was driving deployed its airbags. The driver’s theory does not point out a precise defect in the airbag system, and his expert did not pick one out either, so the system was reasonably safe, not defective.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Boardman, Filed On: September 28, 2023, Case #: 8:20cv2164, NOS: Motor Vehicle Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Vehicle, Negligence, Product Liability
J. Boardman grants two loan officers and Wells Fargo their motions to dismiss for a lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim following allegations of consumer credit violations brought by a borrower. After the borrower took out a mortgage with the bank, she fell behind on her payments and timely rescinded the loan. Ten years later, Wells Fargo sent her a mortgage bill and continued to do so although she instructed them to stop. Neither of the officers works or lives in Maryland, so personal or specific jurisdiction cannot be applied. Also, the borrower claims that under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Wells Fargo had no right to report that she falsely owed debts to consumer credit agencies. However, under this act, no private right of action exists, so she cannot proceed.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Boardman, Filed On: September 22, 2023, Case #: 8:22cv1712, NOS: Consumer Credit - Other Suits, Categories: Debt Collection, Consumer Law, Banking / Lending