Opinion ID: 2351666
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Maryland Court Proceedings

Text: On August 27, 1999, more than a year subsequent to the filing of his federal claim, petitioner filed the instant action in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. As stated, supra, petitioner's complaint, as amended, contained three counts. Petitioner's FMLA claim, his initial count, was identical to that advanced in the then-pending federal court action. Because of the pending federal court action, the circuit court ordered a stay of the state court action pending the decision by the Fourth Circuit in the federal court action. the circuit court ordered a stay of the state court action pending the decision by the Fourth Circuit in the federal court action. After receiving a favorable decision by the Fourth Circuit in the federal action, WMATA filed a motion in the circuit court to (1) lift the stay in the state court action and (2) dismiss the entire action. On January 4, 2002, subsequent to a hearing on the motions, the circuit court dismissed Counts I (FMLA claim) and II (contract claim) of petitioner's complaint on the ground of res judicata. At a later hearing on March 29, 2002, the circuit court dismissed Count III (Maryland Constitution claim) of petitioner's complaint as being barred by both sovereign immunity and res judicata. [5] On appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, the court was asked to decide whether the circuit court correctly dismissed all three counts of [petitioner's] complaint on the ground of res judicata and, insofar as Count III is concerned, the additional ground of sovereign immunity. Lizzi v. WMATA, 156 Md.App. at 6, 845 A.2d at 63 (alteration added). While the intermediate appellate court did affirm the decision of the circuit court, it did so in relation to petitioner's Counts I and II for reasons other than those relied upon by that court. Id. at 7, 845 A.2d at 63. In explaining its reasoning behind its departure from the reasons for dismissal given by the circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals stated: It is not necessary that we decide whether res judicata bars [petitioner's] suit on the ground that the federal court ruled [respondents] immune. This is because we hold that WMATA and the individual [supervisors] are shielded from suit in state court by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and that WMATA has not waived that immunity for claims such as those brought by [petitioner]. Id. at 8, 845 A.2d at 64 (alterations added).