please the court i'm leslie stellman i represent l hall a disabled citizen of this country who lives in maryland and who was for over six years living successfully and peacefully more or less woman who had a very significant corporate career behind her and these disabilities obviously impacted her greatly but she had a service dog that led to some complaints and the landlord and she through coun in two thousand and nine worked out a service dog arrangement through a settlement that settlement was just working fine until grey star the apple e in this case came along purchased these apartments in maryland in that house in maryland area  and immediately began to breach and advocate the agreements in doing so they among other things took took over a storage area that she had by agreement access to use through a pretext a nd then made a number of other efforts to evict her all along the way she made it very clear that she was engaging in complaints pursuant to the fair housing act she went to hud the housing urban development folks and filed a formal complaint she went to the maryland commission and what was then called the commission on human relations is now called the commission on civil rights filed a formal complaint she committed probably the most obvious form of protected ac fair housing act one could do not simply compliant but actually file complaints and charges for which a series of retaliatory actions are detailed in both an original complaint we filed and an amended complaint this case is about  as so many cases turn to turn out to be ever since the twamley and it ball cases came down some years ago access to the court in tennessee v lane we all know that was about physical access to a court house and the supreme court was so upset with denying disabled people access to the court that they actually blew through the eleventh the memmott immunity enjoyed by the state in order to give access to the court this is another more subtle form of access and larry tribe's recent book called uncertain justice the roots the roots in this case sorcha what's vs supreme while this case is not about purely disability it's really more about retaliation and swerve where it's of course was about discrimination under title seven the court seemed to look to the same thing but i will let the court know first that retaliation is not fundamental disability discrimination it's much broader and in fact seven zero four eight which is the title seven version of retaliation which nasser versus university of texas was very narrowly construed as a but for test this is a broader one that goes beyond the usual kind of retaliation in civil rights cases but includes intimidation and coercion it's explicit in the statute what we have here is a complaint that was very thorough this complaint followed this work which is what we thought was this work what's exam example of what you need to do and even if it paul and twamley made it clear it's not about  allegations it's about facts this case is loaded with facts we have a complaint that lays out the entire history of the acts of retaliation the the concerted effort she made to engage in protected activity under the fair housing that is this is what i was looking for so if you can be really specific what are the factual allegations in the complaint that if true would show causation i see the activity and i see what you allege are the retaliatory acts in response but but originally the facts start with all of the protected activity and all of the acts that they committed to violate her rights as a disabled person under the fair housing act at some point then they explain that she went to court through an eviction and during that process following the process of the victualling they treated her property in such a way as to violate not only the local code governing evicted tenants but they essentially went beyond and destroyed this property that was ten months later is that right no not at all should and i think there's some confusion about the proximate proximity between the protected activities and the most recent protected activity was miss hall standing in a court room three weeks before the invasion in november of two thousand and eleven and saying you honor i'm a victim of retaliation this addiction is retaliatory and in fact i have a lawsuit pending that will be tried in february of next year only a few months away in our state courts which is kelly she's not saying that  pushchair she has a right but it's not it's not protected for purposes of discrimination laws we're on with with all due respect i understand protected activity for example in the title seven arena to be very very broad and if you look at thompson versus national skilling and you look at all of the cases that defy protected activity it includes any utterance to an employer and in this case a landlord of a disagreement with the way your big treated based on your protected status so because she's engaged in complaining about the way she's treated as a disabled person that to be was the protected activity that was asserted within three weeks prior to the eviction in december of two thousand and eleven that included the destruction of all our property so i believe there was protected activity that was close in time but even if it was it one could infer from the complaint if you look at the complainant a fourteen and fifteen you look at the epic story that goes on as to what happened who hurt her property her personal property you look at a twelve and a thirteen you look at the basis for which she sought to protect her property she made arrangements during the of the action and then at the very end on page eight fifteen in a sixteen where we started accounts we explained that they were aware of her protected activity she engaged in it they were malicious and you don't actually have to show that they don't do this to everyone you don't have to you don't even have to allege like this is different from what usually happens it's sort of plain on its face that something inconsiderate could not happen but for certain kind of precisely judgers this is where where we have the inferences and even this court in the mccleary case and more recently and there been other cases that followed in this court and in the district courts in maryland and other states in the fourth circuit where they said you can draw from inferences to draw logical sensible inferences using and one court call that common sense of the judge to assume that there was a causation between the two the words because of which are the magic words that somehow police want us to use have actually been used to reject under twelve b six complaints looking just like this because because of our public i just really want to clarify question i'm not concerned that the complaint doesn't say because  i'm not concerned about any failure of a kind of a formal failure to say it happened because of my concern is i don't see the facts allege that if true would show the causation i'm not worried about the failure to say it i'm worried about the protected activity predicted activity was complaining and even hiring a council to sign a settlement agreement with respect to the service dog that when that service dog agreement was breached by grace starr repeatedly including through the destruction of property over there was a precursor to this a moment when in two thousand and ten and twenty two thousand and ten they destroyed property that belong to her that was in a storage area she complained again then file the complaint and a maryland state human relation once at which were rejected which were rejected but the fact that they were rejected does not mean and i think this court recently suggested in questioning the jordan dr jordan versus alternative resources just because at the time they were rejected doesn't mean that the acts of retaliation were committed she in good faith believe even under the jordan versus alternative resources a case that has been part of highly question in the civil rights bar even if you accept that it's a it was in good faith she made these complaints and therefore these complaints constitute protected activity and i think there are going to be because they were all in the furthering dressing grievance based on our disability that's correct your honor they were grievances a dressing her disability and the the final blow is close to yours in a spouse in that hearing that the theory that that which theory i thought i just went in response to my colleague you just said that all of these acts you think were because of her disability even though you haven't said that and that she was treated differently that they wouldn't have had the same approach to someone else who they believe had violated the lease or they wouldn't have been able to terminate the lease of someone else and so what what case would be closest to that will fall into the clear there have been some cases that socially suggestive that you don't need to have this  precise wording no no again i'm not after the wording i'm after the as i understand it your your theme is that this that your client is disabled and she had just agreement with her landlord and every piece of disagreement was because of her disability and what even though you haven't alleged that and therefore she was treated differently than other people other tenants who didn't have just ability so there there's no pleading here about other clients they're not people that know because our judgment just once again this isn't a disability case this is a retaliation case so the focus is not on how she was treated because of her disability although that's those are facts that  helpful as historical background it's about why she was treated as she was on account of having protected gauged in the protected acts of making these complaints the cases of point where there's a recent case out of north carolina  last november of twenty fourteen johnson versus city of shelby where i think they said look don't get caught up in the tuam billy ball concern as the plausibility i think we have plausibility here that there is indeed no question but that she was retaliated because of protected activity and i think count one of our complain of both complaints clearly shows that i'm sorry i don't have time to talk about conversion i would like to briefly mention that but very quickly johnson is still controlling law throughout the land and that all we're looking for are facts that get you beyond the plausibility test of equality if you do that don't worry about conclusory assertions such as causation showing that because of the new again i think because of this troublesome you don't need it in fact that you lose on that even in the basket case of this court the word because of wasn't good enough it's all about the facts and i think our facts of powerful and lead to an inference the judge said seriously fail to make very quickly and two other points on the conversion point judged are just contradicts himself he basically says well conversion first he i think he misreads the the baltimore county code he does a no analysis of the of that code he doesn't suggest that maybe he had a look at the legislative the tete the history other cases he doesn't do a thing instead he just says i read the plain meaning of this statute that says it's abandoned and then he realizes well at least it's not a bed and if it was taken from around a via a call and it's not coming right out of the apartment and that's in his second rolling but what he keeps forgetting along the way is that this property is also subject to the first section of the baltimore county code which says it needs to be placed on the premises as close to the landlord's property as possible shall is and that statute in maryland courts use shall very seriously as judge m knows from your experience on our appellate courts and he ignores that blows right by that and goes to the last piece of the statute or the code which says it's considered abandoned he doesn't do much of an analysis maybe that's where and that's why we believe perhaps he should have certified the question without our even having to ask to our high court to get a better answer of last point five could please make it although my lights read and that's with respect to history other time reserving a little time but i'd just like to abrogated an agreement with the with the my client to allow her to move that her stuff to a pod nearby instead he was taking orders from gray stars h n n attorney at that point he exceeded his authority and qualified immunity is lost i'm done thank you very much will be addressing the conversion claim and miss mcdonald from the attorney general's office will be talking about the immunities and and related matters on the fair housing claim judge hairs and as you correctly asked the same question we've been asking since this case started in that is it tell us what the facts are that show causation the fact that miss hallberg repeatedly brought complaints for discrimination repeatedly raised discrimination concerns in court actions when her lease was terminated and things like that and as the record shows judgments as you correctly pointed out every time the judges or the investigators found no discrimination and they have there's this long history of this and that yes there's no tie of this history to what happened on the day of the eviction all of the events that occurred that are being discussed if they were br discrimination claims they would all be barred by the statute of limitations because they would have worked more than two years prior to the complaint so instead we have this one day a vixen event and then sweeping back and trying to capture all this she's claiming that she was sort of the fly in the autumn and if you will because she was complaining about things that related to her disability that was six years before these events so we have the whole issue that we are going to briefs about temporal ties to  know there were other events well as a counsel indicated she did raise in her addiction action there was a district court case to get a warning restitution and then she took an appeal to the circuit court at the circuit court hearing she raised the issue that it was a disease that it was related to her disability and that this was a retaliatory eviction the transcript from that court hearing has been submitted and the judge said there was not one shred of evidence to support that in order that the eviction go forward she also then filed a petition for a stay of enforcement of the eviction and that was denied so if those are those are characterized as protected activity then that would  sure that they are protected and whether she's going to be able to keep her home because of various problems with her landlord but ten months before she filed some sort of before the term of the action action and as we point out in the briefs if you look at title seven cases when you get out to beyond four five six months there's no temporal tie that connects those things so in that respect if that's the protected activity we would argue that there is no temporal connection that mr hall had several of us can you let me just so it does i mean as i as i've been trying to wrestle with it does seem like what we're missing here is some allegation that few blocks away i know we're going to dump in pennsylvania why why would it's wherever landfills have openings and can take trash so we could be many miles away could be close to home that's sort of irrelevant to what happened it is not unusual in that sense you would rather throw yourself away than to let it take you to a park nearby that seems cruel well your honor she had had much notice many months it doesn't seem cruel you meet him up and take you with fifteen thousand pounds of human nuances of the human experience is when we talk about something being cruel and that is despite of all that whackos just take this stuff to a park nearby instead you add insult to injury we don't take it to a jump out of the state causation you've got to you've got to you've got to look at the complaint before course the complaint say is what she alleged here have the elements of a claim what you're contending is that something that my client did was a bad actor wrong thing and it may very well be that the way she characterize it is a wrong thing and if we have a chance to present opposite facts know is relevant to so to maybe that ten months ago is still fuming in your head well you know that's why it's relevant is still fuming in your head to the point that you could do something it seems on his face crude very cruel your honor for six years as counsel has alleged she had opportunities time and time again to raise claims of discrimination which were denied and had her opportunity to exercise her rights and then at the very last moment the a vixen when we now have the opportunity to get possession of her apartment back and she is going to move away and no longer be interacting with my clients it's alleged that we then decided to retaliate and take action against her property to me i mean under the tests in mccleary evans and  there must be a plausible claim of relief and that includes causation and the fact that this could happen to every resident at that property and it wasn't because of her disability is an important issue here and it is not sort of your represent only sure this is really cool and unnecessary but that is in fact what we do to everyone we're just up on the glamour i would suggest we don't do to anyone and if we could go through the facts in this case not that i want to go through discovery but if we do i think that we will find that many of those facts are not true just as the fact that the complaint talks about all the allegations of discrimination but if you look at the court records my time is up if you look at the court records the records do not support that there was any discrimination i gather your answer to this last series of questions is ok maybe if and you court have to accept the allegations that the complaint is true and so that gets that we acted rudely at the end but we were giving her if you are you also have to take into account the fact that she has pled towards this eviction that we gave her extra time that we went to court we said we're not going to do it right away we kept giving her extensions of time and that is evidence that there that there were there wasn't any connection with discrimination maybe we everybody got irritated everybody absolutely  that made it better when i didn't act like perfect gentleman but it was because we were irritated at her or her all of these delays at the end not because of any discrimination but if that's your argument maybe we're not allowed to make that well your honor i think it still comes down to being on pleading case and there are elements you have to plead the cases we've cited are very clear about that and under ball you got to state the elements to put together a plausible claim for relief and you base it go back to that there isn't any protected activity more recently than ten months and no tie of any of the protected activity to what happened on that day you know whatever happened that day the it was an eviction action and we don't know exactly what happened but it could have been for a variety of reasons it could have bended you know some contractors made some mistakes you fiction actions are often not happy they're not happy and to go to judge gregory's point you know that every day in baltimore where i work i see people things on the street and it is cruel it's terrible that it happens to people but landlords can't have piles of debris in their parking lot so that's why there's the baltimore county code to make sure that it's not on public property in the landlords got to do something to take care of it and the statutes give them legal rights to move it and you know so it's apartment into the truck to the the dump the with regard to judge but ours first opinion i think the complaint alleged that my clients had taken things out of the apartment with one of their truck and had also taken a person some other items that were returned to this hall based upon that the judge there are found that the property was abandoned as per the bottom county statute that statute given everybody else's ways more of a littering statute if you will i don't think those two things link up the way mr stillman indicated to the court in the amended complaint there is a very minor change with regard to these boxes and that changes that paragraph twenty three to eleven to thirteen that a large amount of file boxes were placed around her own vehicle and that her housekeeper and she goes on to indicate in paragraph twenty seven  least what is the status of piece and we're skating yes the moment you take it from her apartment what is your status as to respect to the property we're on the property as agents or as directed by grace starr i said what's the because you're holding a band if it's a band and if you're in possession you own it right i think that would be correct yeah ok so so you at the point you own the property so the job position then that she couldn't even get it from you at that point it's abandoned are i mean it's abandoned right anybody i take it your position is anybody could come along if i saw that there was a two part that i wanted i would just take it up it's correct not pennsylvania to the dump you can't have it done with that one countermand which she said i already have i made arrangements to have it and they said no you can't have it because we have instructions to take this to the dump we don't dump your stuff in another state rather than give it to you right now and th told no you wouldn't do it that's not a fact there is nothing alleged about her having a dump truck there or a truck to take it to the best my knowledge is no allegation that she has anything there to take anything anywhere else there is an allegation that she made some type of negotiation with someone about moving these materials that that's not including my client my client's not really a part of all that he simply tired to do things from one place to another the position statement argument that we need to be united discussed it simply because he happens to be holding aband tacit question about this is confuse me so in this i guess is the second order the district court says yes it will but these boxes were not abandoned so that's a different matter but i'm taking that one out anyway because the amount of damages why shouldn't the number be the same because she's still appealing right on the district court first order she actually does want damages even for the furniture because she thinks the baltimore co was read wrong in that they're not abandon so why should she change the amount of damages you know what i'm saying i know what you're saying i don't know that but i took it in to get it why did you have to give up it's still on appeal i understand that it's mildly confusing to me because when i looked at that i was quite unsure i'm talking about all these things that are just these extra boxes with regard to the extra boxes which are the only ones that good authority for a motion to dismiss stage the district court has to figure out exactly what's in the boxes what are the documents want to each document go to that just seems weird a motion to dismiss to well i think with the conversion issue when you're trying to find out it conversion if you look at for instance in lots of people plea i tried to myself actually the i mean as far as the difference in the damages amount yeah and i don't you know this is illustrated many different from the before pleading and the after pleading other than these several boxes made well last i still think i don't think there has been a let's a bit of market value for these items which which we don't have that there we have this generalized number there and in conversion we're talking usually about specific items with specific amounts we don't have that here in this case and there's no real description of the items other than the fact that they're papers involved in the litigation as i think mr stillman talked about there was a trial coming up the case was dismissed the judge january and i stuff in her apartment she's still appealing that part of the ruling why does she have to which is supposed to do knock it down now and then if she wins on appeal it goes back up to three million it just seems she didn't do you know him so i'm wondering what you're saying and if the again i m immunity but we had raised diplo and continue to stand by this print very important overarching principle i would point out that just with respect to lieutenant calley there are essentially three reasons why the district court sided judgment should be affirm in the first and most important is that there are simply no allegations that lieutenant calley exercised any dominion and control over any of mr hall's property as required to state a conversion claim nor are there any allegations that he had any supervisory responsibility for or authority over p s n personnel secondly with respect to the property that was removed from the apartment during the eviction the district work properly found that under the baltimore county code the property was abandoned and then finally as you alluded to your honor the complaint fails to allege any facts from which one could infer that lieutenant calley acted with actual malice or gross negligence in executing the writ and for this reason he's entitled to well that's not necessary your honor for two reasons one it is again an analysis based on the complaint and for that reason under the brewster vs lynchburg case the appellate court can affirm on different grounds and have cited by the district court which were clearly alternative basis for dismissing as against lieutenant calley and one that of course is generally very effective in this particular case is this court is perfectly capable of also looking as we had suggested the district court do looking at the allegations in the amended complaint to see whether or not they state with any specificity any basis for asserting that lieutenant calley acted with actual malice or gross negligence and in this particular instance the only allegations that are cited by the pla are that lieutenant calley evidenced a wanton disregard for miss hall's verbalized intent not to her bend in her abandon her property there's no allegation that there is any deficiency with respect to the writ of position of possession or that he in any lieutenant kelley interceded in the agreement to transport the property to a storage site there is no allegations of that fact whatsoever in the amended complaint and i would point out to the court at the joint appendix page two fourteen  paragraph twenty two again that's the paragraph dealing with the allegations with respect to this alleged agreement lieutenant calley is not referenced at all in that paragraph except to say that after this agreement falls apart where a fair reading of the plane is intervention to deputy sheriffs on site at the premises inform a stall that they had negotiated an agreement with the encouragement of attorney could be he where we are by pearson landscaping would take their property to the portable storage unit in return for a cashier's check in the amount of six hundred dollars miss hall immediately proceeded to the bank and obtained a cashier's check however upon her return presentment of the cashier's check to stewart's squire counts grace starr indicated that the agreement was terminated and that p s n landscaping would not take her property to the portable storage unit mr seagal who had been on site from the outset and actively participating in the fiction continued giving orders to the pearson landscaping employees as they continue to load missiles property onto the trucks were partly technically vacated supposed and left premises that is the only reference with respect to  tenet kelly during any part of this agreement alleged agreement and refusal to honor the agreement so again there's simply no evidence whatsoever no allegations whatsoever that lieutenant kelly had anything to do with  where the dump truck was going and apparently that information was incorrect i wish her well the ship and i'm glad you asked that your honor because i think it's important to put the context of you know how how addictions are handled in baltimore county maryland the sheriff is there for two reasons one to execute the writ and to ensure the peace they do not physically remove the items from the premises that is actually done by the landlord and so when they when an eviction is scheduled the first thing that happens is the sheriff's office does a warrant check and the gun checks for this sort of know what they're going into they contact both sets of parties so that the landlord is aware of when this is going to be scheduled they also contact the tenet if they are unable to contact the tenant they will then post op post the writ on the premises in this case they contacted miss hall apparently twice they scheduled the eviction and the landlord is required to bring eight to ten movers and a locksmith and then at the eviction there basically to serve the notice of the  and ensure that no harm comes to anyone during the course of the eviction they were possession of the real property to the owner and personal property is removed by the landowner and the other thing they do is that if cash is found during the course of the eviction  owner isn't present they will take the cash and complete a property form if control dangerous substances or weapons are found during the eviction those are seized and turned over to to the baltimore county police department so their function is not physically to remove this stuff their function is to make sure that you know there's there's no incidents that there's no fisticuffs going on that there's not a brawl that no one is injured they are there as you know to execute the court's order but not necessarily to actually physically move the items so in this case there's simply no allegations that kelly touched any of the property exercise dominion control of the property or did anything that smacks of malice or gross negligence and so for that reason he would be entitled to a person a statutory personnel immunity under the maryland tort claims act and under the courts and judicial proceedings articles section five five two two if you have another question about that particular  between the filing of the hud complaint and the ultimate objection but we've never sought for a lie on temple proximity alone i understand that the case is put some significance on temporal proximity in fact i haven't found  case where the last protected act was ten months or found to be a basis for a cause of action in retaliation and if you have one i'd be grateful i do and in and when is that the case is in some cases that we cite in our brief came the rumsfeld or fourth circuit case from two thousand and three the site it's more than ten months in that case  when the temporal proximity is based on a natural decision point in essence the adverse action cannot take place earlier because at the end of let's say a review term for a teacher who ends up getting a negative review or in this case even more so a court process which miss hall has begun and continued to advocate her rights culminating in a vision which is scheduled delayed of course by various court proceedings and then occurs ten months later the natural decision point at which action can take is no earlier than that point that is this to mean challenging is a protected activity and i'm not sure about that i would have said her action before the state human relations commission or whatever it is is a protected activity they they rejected her claim a cheap feeling she continued to pursue that claim in circuit court but the filing  the filing of the hud complaint is indeed a protected activity and that was months before yeah i'm not sure i understand the natural i understand what king said but i'm not sure it's political this the filing of the hud complaint pertaining to  pattern of conduct towards miss hall that all of that or that that occurred before that all related to her disability but you have you don't where ever more have a retaliation complaint the question you asked earlier you asked a question earlier the plaintiffs complained of various adverse actions that affected their disability here ms hall complained about removal of property from a storage unit which she had as a reasonable accommodation for her disability she also complained about being denied three bedroom apartment which it was a combination for her disability then the eviction process started she filed her heart complaint that ten months go by there was no earlier time for the ultimate  conduct of removing her property and transporting it to a landfill took her so i mean so i under i think i understand your argument ten months it seems like a long time but it was the first chance the landlord so they just had to carry the grudge for the full ten months but is that really realistic when you're talking about a landlord tenant i mean i wouldn't rubio kinds of ways a landlord can make a tenants life difficult including a bunch of the ones you just mentioned but that happened earlier like you can take her stuff out of the storage unit there's all time maybe some people the landlord but this is an ongoing relationship you know it's not like it's a natural many maybe landlords would like there to be natural breaking point but the ongoing relationship your your sewer wrong or the curtains don't work or didn't there's noise in the back and for sure in the natural maybe the term natural is not as helpful but the scheduled time to take the ultimate action over removing her and read the record so we'll know the records are really helpful to us if you're honest in answering because as i read the record the court said ok should be out right away and the landlord said no we're going to give her additional time is that not what happened which the eviction took place too but why didn't you transfer why did you do that in this case why didn't you why did you i think the egregious nature of the way in which her property was removed is t g for property for a tenant who expects her property to be placed on the landlord's property outside on the premises not to be taken to a landfill out of state and then it being directly put on the trucks and what the problem is you are fair state of american allows that kind of thing you see like say well it's a bad well i think the uncertainty uncertainty that we have in the baltimore county code begs this question for a more thorough his post and the deputy sheriffs supervised the removal of her property in contrary contrary to the agreement to transport it to a storage and what was the agreement you allude six hundred dollars to transport the property to