UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1103

NICOLE ANDREA SMITH; JACQUELINE KIANA MORANT; AMY 

TOWSON; SARA GARRET; ONNADAY MCINTOSH-GRIGGS; STEPHANIE 

HARRIS; TAKIRA CARTER; LYNETTE COOPER; SHANAE BARNES; 

CELESTE ENGLISH; MYRTLE GILBERT; TOWANDA PARKER; TRACEY 

HOLDEN; ROSENA PRINCE; LASONIA GILBERT; DETRIA ADAMS; 

SIERRIA WARREN; SHANAE BOLES; KHRYSTYNA KELLEY, All of the 

above Individually Named Plaintiffs On Behalf of Themselves and all Other 

Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

and

VITINA YVETTE THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF BALTIMORE CITY; PAUL T. GRAZIANO, 

Baltimore City Housing Commissioner and Executive Director of the Housing 

Authority of Baltimore City; THE CITY OF BALTIMORE; MAYOR AND CITY 

COUNSEL OF BALTIMORE; CHARLES COLEMAN, a/k/a Clinton Coleman; 

DOUG HUSSY; MICHAEL ROBINSON; DOUG HUSSEY,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

CLINTON COLEMAN; MICHAEL ROBERTSON,

Defendants,

v.
2

PHOENICIA HARRELL,

Movant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:15-cv-02921-GLR)

Submitted: July 31, 2017 Decided: September 11, 2017

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Landon M. White, LAW OFFICE OF LANDON M. WHITE, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellant. Cary J. Hansel, Erienne A. Sutherell, HANSEL LAW, PC, Baltimore, 

Maryland; Carrie Blackburn Riley, BLACKBURN RILEY, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Phoenicia Harrell appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion to 

compel intervention into a class action. On appeal, Harrell contends that the district court 

erred in not compelling Class Counsel to produce documents regarding absent class 

members who were rejected due to lack of a phone interview and that the district court 

erred in not decertifying the class due to inadequate notice to Harrell and others. We find 

that, because Harrell’s registration form was untimely filed, the district court correctly 

denied her motion.

At the core, Harrell is alleging that she (and other potential class members) did not 

get proper notice that a phone interview needed to be completed by August 26, 2016, in 

order to qualify as a member of the class. However, it is undisputed that, in order to 

properly register as a member of the class, the written registration form was due by

August 26, 2016. It is further undisputed that Harrell’s form was postmarked August 26, 

but not received until after that date. In an effort to show that her registration was timely 

filed, Harrell relies on the mailbox rule, arguing that her registration was timely 

postmarked. See Cochran v. Norkunas, 919 A.2d 700, 714 (Md. 2007) (“The well 

established rule is that in the absence of any limitation of provision to the contrary in the 

offer, the acceptance of the offer is complete and the contract becomes binding on both 

parties when the offeree deposits the acceptance in the post box.”). She also cites Md. 

Rule 1-203(c), which provides three extra days due to notice being delivered by mail.

The mailbox rule applies specifically to the acceptance of a contract offer through 

the mail. See Cochran, 919 A.2d at 714-15. Here, Harrell’s registration form did not 
4

complete a contract, whereby she became a member of the class. Instead, it is undisputed 

that Harrell was not a member of the class until her application was reviewed, she was 

interviewed, and she was approved. Thus, no contract was formed by her registration, 

and the mailbox rule is therefore inapplicable. Further, Md. Rule 1-203(c) is also 

inapplicable, as the registration period begins with the mailing of the class notice, rather 

than “service.” See Chance v. Washington Metro. Transit Auth., 920 A.2d 536, 542-44 

(Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2007) (noting further that Rule is inapplicable where all residents 

were notified by mail and there was, thus, no need for an “equalization factor”). 

Accordingly, the district court properly found Harrell’s registration to be untimely.

Thus, Harrell’s challenge to the district court’s denial of her request for discovery 

regarding the phone interviews is irrelevant. That is, even if numerous other potential 

class members were rejected because they did not complete their phone interviews by 

August 26, this does not change the fact that Harrell did not timely file her written 

registration form. Accordingly, error in the notice or discovery process, if any, was 

harmless. 

Likewise, Harrell’s second issue is equally irrelevant. It appears that Harrell is 

arguing that she was not notified of her rejection from the class until the court had 

already closed the case, thus preventing her ability to challenge the rejection and uncover 

other improperly rejected applicants. However, it is undisputed that Harrell was 

informed of the final fairness and approval hearing, as well as her ability to appear at the 

fairness hearing or file objections the settlement agreement. Harrell was also given 

notice of how to ask questions or get more information, and she could have easily 
5

determined the status of her application prior to the fairness hearing. It is further 

undisputed that Harrell did not object to the settlement agreement or the fairness hearing. 

In any event, given that Harrell did not timely file her registration form, she was 

not prejudiced by the timing of the rejection notice. Had she been notified prior to the 

fairness hearing and appeared at the fairness hearing to object, the result would have been 

identical. The issues were fully briefed in Harrell’s motion to compel, and the district 

court concluded that Harrell’s application was untimely filed and that she failed to show 

any excusable neglect. Thus, the procedural errors, if any, were merely harmless.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED