Baker v. Montgomery County
201 Md. App. 642
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2011Background
- Maryland enacted TA 21-809 to authorize speed cameras in Montgomery County with a $40 civil penalty.
- TA 21-809 defines terms like speed monitoring system, operator, and recorded image and sets procedures for citations and defenses.
- The County and several municipalities contracted with ACS to operate speed monitoring systems, with varying compensation structures contingent on citations.
- Plaintiffs, speed offenders, alleged TA 21-809(j) prohibited contingent contractor fees and sought to challenge the contracts as unlawful.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for appellees, ruling no private right of action exists under TA 21-809 and that plaintiffs waived rights by paying fines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TA 21-809 creates a private remedy. | Baker argues Cort factors imply a private action. | Appellees contend no private remedy and statute provides exclusive contest method. | No private action exists under TA 21-809. |
| Whether appellants are the class meant to benefit from TA 21-809(j). | Appellants are within the special-benefit class. | Statute benefits the public; appellants admitted liability by paying fines. | Appellants not within the special-benefit class. |
| Whether paying the $40 fines waived any private rights to challenge TA 21-809. | Waiver did not bar constitutional or statutory challenges. | Payment constitutes admission of liability and waiver of challenge. | Payment created waiver; no private action remains. |
| Whether the LGTCA or related procedural constraints affect the case. | LGTCA notice or other procedural requirements may apply to private actions. | No private action exists, so LGTCA notice is inapplicable. | Not necessary to address LGTCA; private action does not exist. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1975) (three-factor test for implied private right of action)
- Erie Ins. Co. v. Chops, 322 Md. 79 (Md. Ct. of Appeals, 1991) (three-factor approach to implied private actions; flexibly applied in Maryland)
- Sugarloaf Citizens Ass'n, Inc. v. Gudis, 78 Md.App. 550 (Md. Ct. App., 1989) (legislative remedies should not be read to create private actions; focus on legislative intent)
- Lockshin v. Semsker, 412 Md. 257 (Md. Ct. App., 2010) (statutory interpretation; ascertain legislative purpose and plain meaning)
- Hayes v. State, 183 Md.App. 742 (Md. Ct. App., 2009) (private action not allowed where statute does not confer remedy)
- McCrory Corp. v. Fowler, 319 Md. 12 (Md. Ct. App., 1990) (local law cannot create private causes of action traditionally reserved to state actors)