Marshall v. Safeway, Inc.
63 A.3d 672
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- Marshall sued Safeway in circuit court alleging over-garnishments violated Maryland’s Wage Payment and Collection Law and seeking damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest, declaratory and injunctive relief.
- District Court writs in Capital One’s garnishment case directed Safeway to withhold, but the writs did not specify exact amounts; Safeway used software-based Maryland exemptions under CL 15-601.1(b)(1) that were, in Prince George’s County, applicable to all counties except four, leading to over-garnishment.
- Safeway garnished Marshall’s wages beginning June 2009 and repeatedly calculated exemptions under state formula, which in practice exempted less than the federal minimum-exemption, causing over-garnishment of six pay periods totaling $45.25.
- Safeway later changed its garnishment policy in August 2010 to conform to the Writ’s exemptions for all Maryland employees; Capital One released the prior writ and Safeway stopped garnishing.
- Marshall amended to drop the Payment Law claim and add a contract claim; the circuit court dismissed the Payment Law claim for lack of private right and jurisdictional amount, and later dismissed the contract claim for lack of jurisdiction.
- Marshall sought class certification; the court denied certification on multiple grounds, then held declaratory and injunctive relief moot after tender and policy change.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private action under Payment Law for 3-503 | Marshall: private action lies for unlawful deductions under 3-503 via 3-507.2(a). | Safeway: private action limited to 3-502/3-505; over-garnishment under 3-503 not actionable. | No private action for 3-503; failure to pay under 3-502/3-505 only; claim properly dismissed. |
| Class certification appropriate when policy changed moot | Common issues remain despite tender; class should be certified for common questions. | Tender mooted the claim; commonality failed; certification improper. | Court did not abuse discretion; denial of class certification affirmed because remaining issues not common. |
| Denial of discovery on class issues | Discovery needed to test numerosity and class composition. | Discovery largely moot post-certification denial; records not essential for non-class relief. | No abuse; denial of motion to compel discovery affirmed. |
| Declaratory and injunctive relief mootness | Outstanding fees and treble damages could sustain relief; not moot. | No live controversy after tender and policy change; relief moot. | No error; declaratory and injunctive relief properly denied as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Friolo v. Frankel, 373 Md. 501 (Md. 2003) (enforcement history of Payment Law and private action origins)
- People’s Ins. Counsel Div. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 408 Md. 386 (Md. 2009) (statutory interpretation methodology; purpose and structure)
- Creveling v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., 376 Md. 72 (Md. 2003) (class certification prerequisites; commonality standard)
- Dutta v. State Farm, 363 Md. 540 (Md. 2001) (PIP benefits; collateral source payments and commonality)
- Frazier v. Castle Ford, Ltd., 200 Md.App. 285 (Md. Ct. App. 2011) (tender before certification may moot class action unless discovery justifies delay)
- Rein v. Koons Ford, Inc., 318 Md. 130 (Md. 1989) (aggregation of claims for monetary jurisdiction)