Marshall v. James B. Nutter & Co.
816 F. Supp. 2d 259
D. Maryland2011Background
- Marshall filed a class action against Nutter alleging violations of the Maryland Finder’s Fee Act and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.
- Nutter removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
- Plaintiff alleges that Nutter engaged in table-funding through brokers to conceal Nutter’s role as the true lender and charged unlawful finder’s fees.
- The MFFA prohibits finder’s fees when the broker is also the lender; Plaintiff asserts a conspiratorial scheme with brokers to violate the Act.
- Plaintiff contends the concealment of Nutter’s true lender status violated the MCPA as unfair or deceptive trade practices.
- Marshall seeks damages including the alleged unlawful finder’s fees, and the case proceeds to discovery after the court denied dismissal on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether new arguments raised in the reply may be considered | Marshall argues new arguments in reply should be strikeable. | Nutter contends reply arguments are properly part of the motion. | No strike; motion to strike denied as moot. |
| Whether Savings First and unnamed brokers are indispensable under Rule 19 | Joinder unnecessary because conspirators are co-defendants; case can proceed. | Joinder required to grant complete relief. | Savings First not indispensable; permissive joinder under Rule 20; motion denied. |
| Whether Count One (MFFA conspiracy) states a claim | Plaintiff pleads a detailed conspiracy to violate the MFFA through table-funding. | MFFA applies to brokers, not lenders; conspiracy fails. | Count One survives; allegations pled plausibly and damages alleged. |
| Whether Count Two (MCPA conspiracy) states a claim | Conspiracy to commit false statements, omissions, and deceptive practices violates the MCPA. | Claims lack sufficient detail under Rule 9(b) for misrepresentation; omissions improper. | Count Two survives; pleading meets standards and discovery will proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hashop v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 171 F.R.D. 208 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (indispensable-party analysis under Rule 19)
- Petry v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 597 F. Supp. 2d 558 (D. Md. 2009) (civil conspiracy sufficiency; damages concept)
- Temple v. Synthes Corp., Ltd., 498 U.S. 5 (U.S. 1990) (joinder of co-tortfeasors; joint liability)
- Alleco, Inc. v. Harry & Jeanette Weinberg Found., Inc., 99 Md. App. 696, 639 A.2d 173 (Md. Ct. App. 1994) (co-perpetrators as joint tortfeasors; liability principles)
- Lloyd v. General Motors Corp., 397 Md. 108, 916 A.2d 257 (Md. 2007) (MCPA damages and causation considerations)