Opinion ID: 2681015
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Delay in Filing.

Text: In order for laches to bar a claim, “‘there [must be] an unreasonable delay in the assertion of one’s rights . . . ’” Liddy, 398 Md. at 244, 919 A.2d at 1283 (quoting Frederick Rd., 360 Md. at 117, 756 A.2d at 985). “There is no inflexible rule as to what constitutes, or what does not constitute, laches; hence its existence must be determined by the facts and circumstances of each case.” Parker, 230 Md. at 130, 186 A.2d at 197 (citing Brashears v. Collison, 207 Md. 339, 352, 115 A.2d 289, 295 (1955)). “The passage of time, alone, does not constitute laches but is simply ‘one of the many circumstances from which a determination of what constitutes an unreasonable and unjustifiable delay may be made.’” Buxton, 363 Md. at 645, 770 A.2d at 158 (quoting Parker, 230 Md. at 130, 186 A.2d at 197). In determining whether a delay is unreasonable, we must analyze (i) when, if ever, the claim became ripe (i.e., the earliest time at which Appellees were able to bring their claims); and (ii) whether the passage of time between then and when the Appellees filed the complaint was unreasonable. 133
We begin by considering when Appellees’ claims became ripe in this case. In order for a circuit court to entertain an action, a justiciable controversy must exist. 80 See 80 As the Court explained in more detail in Superblock II, The Maryland Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Maryland Code (2006 Repl.Vol.) § 3–401 et seq. of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“C.J.”), provides that “a court of record within its jurisdiction may declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.” C.J. § 3–403(a). Generally, a motion to dismiss “‘is rarely appropriate in a declaratory judgment action.’” Broadwater v. State, 303 Md. 461, 466, 494 A.2d 934, 936 (1985) (quoting Shapiro v. Bd. of County Com'rs, 219 Md. 298, 302–03, 149 A.2d 396, 398–99 (1959)). Where a bill of complaint shows a subject matter that is within the contemplation of the relief afforded by the declaratory decree statute, and it states sufficient facts to show the existence of the subject matter and the dispute with reference thereto, upon which the court may exercise its declaratory power, it is immaterial that the ultimate ruling may be unfavorable to the plaintiff. The test of the sufficiency of the bill is not whether it shows that the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration of rights or interest in accordance with his theory, but whether he is entitled to a declaration at all; so, even though the plaintiff may be on the losing side of the dispute, if he states the existence of a controversy which should be settled, he states a cause of suit for a declaratory decree. Id., 494 A.2d at 936 (quoting Shapiro, 219 Md. at 302–03, 149 A.2d at 398–99). When a complaint fails to allege a justiciable controversy, however, a motion to dismiss is proper. See C.J. § 3–409(a)(1) (authorizing declaratory judgments only when the complaint establishes that “[a]n actual controversy exists between contending parties”) . . . . Superblock II, 413 Md. at 355-56, 992 A.2d at 487-88. 134 Boyds Civic Ass’n v. Montgomery Cnty. Council, 309 Md. 683, 689, 526 A.2d 598, 601 (1987) (“‘[T]he existence of a justiciable controversy is an absolute prerequisite to the maintenance of a declaratory judgment action.’ . . . It follows, therefore, that in the absence of a justiciable controversy a court should not entertain an action for declaratory judgment.”) (quoting Hatt v. Anderson, 297 Md. 42, 45, 464 A.2d 1076, 1078 (1983)) (citations omitted). “This Court has defined a justiciable controversy as one wherein ‘there are interested parties asserting adverse claims upon a state of facts which must have accrued wherein a legal decision is sought or demanded.’” Id., 309 Md. at 690, 526 A.2d at 601 (emphasis added in Boyds) (quoting Patuxent Co. v. Comm’rs, 212 Md. 543, 548, 129 A.2d 847, 849 (1957)). The rationale is that “addressing non-justiciable issues ‘would place courts in the position of rendering purely advisory opinions, a long forbidden practice in this State.’” Id., 309 Md. at 690, 526 A.2d at 602 (quoting Hatt, 297 Md. at 46, 464 A.2d at 1078). Justiciability has been described as a “concept embodying ‘numerous hurdles.’” Boyds, 309 Md. at 690, 526 A.2d at 602 (quoting E. Borchard, Declaratory Judgments 770 (2d ed. 1941)). One of these “hurdles” is that of ripeness. Id. “Generally, an action for declaratory relief lacks ripeness if it involves a request that the court ‘declare the rights of parties upon a state of facts which has not yet arisen, [or] upon a matter which is future, contingent and uncertain.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Brown v. Trustees of M.E. Church, 181 Md. 80, 87, 28 A.2d 582, 586 (1942)) (some internal quotation marks omitted). The purpose of ripeness is “to ensure that adjudication will dispose of an actual controversy in a conclusive and binding manner.” Id., 309 Md. at 691, 526 A.2d at 135 602. Where an issue is not ripe, the issue is not justiciable and, thus, a court will not entertain the claim. For purposes of the present case, the relevance of this prerequisite to justiciability is that there could be no “delay” until a claim was ripe such that a court could entertain it. One of the first steps in the ripeness analysis is to analyze what interests Appellees claim have been injured. It is important to remember the limited basis upon which Appellees stand. Namely, Appellees bring their claims on the grounds of taxpayer standing; the implications of this is that the only claims that might be before this Court on the merits properly (and, thus, that could be barred by the doctrine of laches) are those claims brought under the taxpayer standing doctrine and on appeal in this case. 81 Thus, 81 Thus, even if the TOD designation was before us on appeal generally, it would not be under review here for purposes of the doctrine of laches. Similarly, those claims of harm which were rejected in our earlier justiciability analysis, such as Appellees’ allegations of harm to their properties, as property owners, and of general harm to the CBD and of harm in the form of competition to their business, are not under consideration here. Moreover, Counts VII (seeking declaratory judgment that “the selection of the architect, engineer and/or contractor for the parking garage was required to have been procured by the State Center Agencies through mandatory methods of source selection under the General Procurement Law . . . and that the State Center Agencies’ actions failed to comply with [the Procurement Law], and as such, the parking garage selections are void and invalid”) and VIII (seeking injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Procurement Law), on which the Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of the State Agencies, are not before us. Therefore, the State Center actions in 2010 involving the financing and development of the parking garage do not factor into our laches analysis. 136 we confront only those claims alleging ultra vires or illegal governmental actions that may cause a pecuniary loss to taxpayers. 82 82 The asserted claims of ultra vires or illegal governmental conduct that might cause pecuniary loss to the taxpayers are reiterated as follows: (a) the selection of the original Master Developer, State Center, LLC, in 2005, for the exclusive right to negotiate to developer the Project by a RFQ, rather than through the RFP competitivebidding process, see Amended Complaint, at ¶ 6, 13; (b) the “allow[ance] [of] substantial change in ownership structure,” despite the RFQ’s emphasis on the experience and capabilities of all key members of the Project, see Amended Complaint, at ¶ 7, 61-66, 7980; (c) the BPW’s approval of and the State Center Agencies and the Developer’s execution of the MDA, without using an RFP’s competitive bidding process, see Amended Complaint, at ¶ 11, (d) the MDA’s commitment to long-term leasing arrangements for State agency occupancy of the Developer’s buildings without the issuance of an RFP, as required by the State’s procurement laws, specifically SFP ¶ 13105, see Amended Complaint, at ¶ 56, 59, 89, 91-93, 103-04, 106; (e) the State’s contracting for building construction services without following State Procurement Law, specifically SFP § 13-103, see, e.g., Amended Complaint, at ¶ 90-91; (f) the DGS’s control of the development process and the buildings once developed, as set provided in the MDA, see Amended Complaint, at ¶ 98-102; (g) the BPW’s approval of and the State Center Agencies and the Developer’s execution of the First Amendment, which “extensively amended, modified and altered the terms and conditions of the MDA in a manner that violated the State’s procurement laws and rules,” see Amended Complaint, at ¶ 8, 10, 11, 109; (h) the First Amendment’s relieving the Developers “of the commercially and financially risky development of a parking garage” and committing $28.3 million to build the parking garage, see Amended Complaint, at ¶ 68, 109, 111-13; (i) “unlawfully modifying the terms and conditions of the initial MDA, including modifications to the construction and financing plan, all without issuance of an RFP,” see Amended Complaint, at ¶ 7; (j) the First Amendment’s change of the terms of the First Phase Ground Lease from 50 years, with the right to renew twice for 20 year terms (as set forth initially in the MDA) to a 75-year initial term with 15-year renewal, without any procurement for this “material, favorable change to the Developer,” see Amended Complaint, at ¶ 118; (k) the First Amendment’s approval of a “material change in the Developer’s Structure, as described above, without any procurement and contrary to the “RFQ,” see Amended Complaint, at ¶ 119; (l) the BPW’s approval of leases in July 2010, “under which four State agencies will procure office space from the Developer as tenants at the Project, without competitive bidding or adherence to State procurement laws and procedures,” see Amended Complaint, at ¶ 16, 32, 110; (m) the BPW’s approval of amendments on 15 December 2010 to those four leases originally approved in July 2010, (Continued…) 137 The State Agencies argue that Appellees’ claims are based almost wholly on “aspects of the project [which] were apparent on the face of the 2005 public RFQ” and, as such, for purposes of laches analysis, the claims should be viewed as accruing when the RFQ was issued publicly and, thus, the delay in filing suit was more than five years. Appellees counter that this starting point mischaracterizes their claims and the nature of the events that occurred subsequent to publication of the RFQ. They rely on Superblock II, 413 Md. at 354, 992 A.2d at 486, and Inlet Associates, 313 Md. at 439, 545 A.2d at 1309, for the proposition that there was no delay in filing their lawsuit because the action was not ripe until “the execution of the definitive and binding Project development documents.” They aver that “[t]he Project was merely conceptual prior to the execution of the MDA in June 2009” because, as the Letter of Intent (“LOI”) stated, “[t]he parties do not intend to be legally bound [to the Project] unless and until a Master Development Agreement (‘MDA’) is entered into and approved by the BPW.” We reject ultimately the parties’ arguments. We begin by addressing Appellees’ assertion that their claims were not ripe until the execution of the binding MDA. The ripeness analysis depends upon the type of lawsuit, which, in this case, is a taxpayer suit. A traditional remedy sought in a taxpayer suit is an injunction to preclude the government (…continued) see Amended Complaint, at ¶ 16; (n) the Developer’s assignment of development rights to its affiliates violates the Procurement Laws. Notably, this second “stage” of the “switch-out” of the Developers, referred to in (n), is not included in the Amended Complaint, but is raised in Appellees’ briefs. Regardless of its lack of inclusion in the Amended Complaint, we find that such actions were envisioned in the MDA and, thus, are felled by the same sword as many of the other claims, as discussed infra. 138 from acting in an illegal or ultra vires manner. As such, the taxpayer suit is unique and, although there must be substantial certainty that the government will act in an illegal or ultra vires manner, taxpayers are not required to wait until the government has acted in an illegal or ultra vires manner prior to filing suit. Such a holding would be inconsistent entirely with the nature of the taxpayer suit modality. The question remains, though, when does the government’s imminent action become substantially certain so that the claim reaches ripeness? In answering this question in the context of the present case, we find Boyds most applicable and very instructive. In Boyds, Montgomery County amended a master plan to provide that certain described land might be suitable for imposition of a mineral resource recovery zone, as prerequisite to adoption of that zoning for a specific area. The complainants sought in their action for declaratory judgment a declaration that the master plan amendment was illegal and unconstitutional, and of no force or effect, because “[it] was approved and adopted in contravention of state and county laws requiring notice and public hearings at certain stages of the amendment process.” Boyds, 309 Md. at 687-88, 526 A.2d at 600. “The circuit court in that case dismissed the claim as not presenting a justiciable controversy” and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed. Id. The Court of Special Appeals and the respondents perceived the case to be governed by Anne Arundel County v. Ebersberger, 62 Md. App. 360, 489 A.2d 96 (1985). As we summarized in Boyds, In Ebersberger, a group of homeowners . . . challenged as unconstitutional and ultra vires a county ordinance which authorized their community association . . . to raise money for swimming pool renovation and 139 maintenance. The Court of Special Appeals held that the action lacked ripeness. In so doing, it emphasized the fact that the ordinance merely authorized, but did not require, the renovations and the fact that there was no certainty the work would ever be done: “[T]he . . . ordinance does not require the district to renovate the pool; it merely authorizes such work. Nor does it specify any particular means of financing the renovation. There is certainly no assurance, from the record now before us, that a budget containing an appropriation for the pool will ever be approved or that a special benefit tax to support such an appropriation will ever be levied. “At least until the prospect of such an appropriation or such a tax becomes substantially more certain, the plaintiffs will have suffered no injury from the challenged ordinance, and its validity or invalidity is therefore of no practical consequence.” 62 Md. App. at 371, 489 A.2d at 101-02 (emphasis in the original). 309 Md. at 695-96, 526 A.2d at 604-05 (alterations in the original). In Boyds, the respondents argued that, because [t]he challenged amendment to the Boyds Master Plan merely authorizes the District Council to grant an application for Mineral Resource Recovery zoning; it does not require the District Council to do so. . . . the adoption of the amendment has not affected any of petitioners' legal rights or caused them any injury, and the future effect upon petitioners remains “wholly speculative.” 309 Md. at 696, 526 A.2d at 605. This Court disagreed, stating: There is, however, an important distinction between Ebersberger and the case at bar. The Ebersberger court reasoned that the challenged ordinance could have no injurious effect upon the plaintiffs until the prospect of its implementation became “substantially more certain.” 62 Md. App. at 371, 489 A.2d at 102. Here, by contrast, the challenged plan amendment was initiated, approved, and adopted in furtherance of an actual, pending application to amend the local zoning map. Moreover, the designation of an area on the applicable master plan as suitable for a Mineral Resource Recovery Zone was a condition precedent to the granting of an application 140 for zoning of an area as a Mineral Resource Recovery Zone. In Count I of the complaint filed in the circuit court petitioners claimed that hearings— spanning some four days—on the application to amend the local zoning map would not have gone forward if the master plan had not been amended. In Count II petitioners alleged that the actions of the Commission and District Council with respect to the plan amendment forced petitioners to hire counsel and land consultants in order to participate in the local zoning map amendment proceedings. The prospect of a controversy, therefore, lay well beyond the realm of matters “future, contingent and uncertain.” Boyds, 309 Md. at 696-97, 526 A.2d at 605 (emphasis added). Similar to Boyds, in the present case, several earlier steps were initiated, approved, and executed in furtherance of the envisioned State Center Project. In this sense, the State Center Project would not have gone forward if certain earlier steps had not taken place. At several points prior to the actual execution of the formative and binding documents regarding the Project, “[t]he prospect of a controversy . . . lay well beyond the realm of matters ‘future, contingent and uncertain.’” Id. This approach, which recognizes that certain earlier stages in a series of envisioned overall stages may reach a level of substantial certainty prior to the government executing a binding document, fits properly within the realm of Procurement Law. This State’s Procurement Law recognizes that filing and resolving disputes earlier, rather than later, is best. Taxpayers filing suits based on violations of the Procurement Law should not be encouraged to delay airing their claims because delay may cost taxpayers more money where the announced path to the binding contract for a procurement is set and, as in this case, takes many years to reach fruition. If the government acted illegally in an early stage that sets the stage for (and serves as a 141 condition precedent to) its later execution of a binding contract, then the alleged illegality has “occurred” for purposes of laches analysis. Contrary to Appellees’ assertions, this approach to the ripeness analysis does not contradict either Inlet Associates or Superblock II. Neither of those cases held that a final or binding document was a prerequisite to ripeness. Rather, the specific facts of those cases illustrate when a controversy may be “future, contingent and uncertain” and when one may become ripe. We consider these cases further. In Superblock II, 120 West Fayette alleged that a proposed plan for the Superblock would violate the MOA and the Renewal Plan. The plan was a mere proposal, however; the City had not yet adopted, approved, or authorized any plans. The Court stated that “[a] declaratory relief action that requests adjudication based on facts that have yet to occur or develop lacks ripeness and should be dismissed for failure to allege a justiciable controversy.” Superblock II, 413 Md. at 356, 992 A.2d at 488 (citing Hickory Point P’ship v. Anne Arundel Cnty., 316 Md. 118, 130, 557 A.2d 626, 632 (1989)); see also id. (“In a declaratory judgment proceeding, the court will not decide future rights in anticipation of an event which may never happen, but will wait until the event actually takes place.”) (emphasis added) (quoting Boyds, 309 Md. at 690, 526 A.2d at 602) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); id. (“The disagreement over which declaratory relief is sought must not be nebulous or contingent but must have taken on fixed and final shape so that a court can see what legal issues it is deciding.”) (emphasis added) (quoting Hickory Point P’ship, 316 Md. at 131, 557 A.2d at 632) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). In reviewing the record of that case, the 142 Court found “nothing that rises to the level of an actual dispute,” id., and “nothing from which [the Court could] infer that the City would approve plans to the contrary [of what was stated in the MOA and the Renewal Plan].” Superblock II, 413 Md. at 358, 992 A.2d at 489 (emphasis added) (citing Boyds, 309 Md. at 691, 526 A.2d at 602). In sum, the Court found it was “unable to infer from the proposed designs and project plans that Lexington Square or the City intends to violate the MOA or the Renewal Plan . . . .” Id. (emphasis in the original). Thus, “[t]he possibility remains that Lexington Square will propose, and the City will approve, plans that, in accordance with the LDA’s requirements, conform to the MOA and the Renewal Plan.” Id. Accordingly, the Court upheld the Circuit Court’s grant of the motion to dismiss Count Two of the amended complaint “on the grounds that 120 West Fayette failed to alleged [sic] facts ripe for adjudication and thus failed to establish a justiciable controversy.” Id. Inlet Associates involved a taxpayer action to enjoin the conveyance of a municipality’s public right-of-way that was part of a dedicated street, together with riparian rights purported to accrue as a result of the municipality’s interest in the dedicated street. In that case, this Court rejected Inlet’s argument that the doctrine of laches barred the plaintiffs’ action. In so holding, the Court stated, The trial judge noted that the City Council did not place its final imprimatur on the Inlet proposal, which as amended included the restaurant in place of the shops on the pier, until October 6, 1986; and that the present case was filed approximately one month later. One reason for the opposition of the unit owners in Assateague House was the late inclusion of the restaurant and its location in the Inlet proposal. In any event, we think it clear from our discussion of equitable estoppel that the doctrine of laches, even if otherwise applicable, does not legalize this patent violation of the Ocean City Charter. We note parenthetically, however, that until the summer of 143 1986, Inlet had not received the necessary permits and authorizations to permit it to proceed to implement its proposed plan. Plaintiffs' suit in November of 1986 was hardly a delay befitting a serious claim of laches. Inlet Assocs., 313 Md. at 439, 545 A.2d at 1309. The analysis, viewed in light of the facts and the taxpayers’ claims in that case, makes apparent that the material changes in the amendments approved by the City Council on 6 October 1986 constituted the violation that the taxpayers challenged. At the time of the action, no “formal documentation” was extant. Rather, the taxpayers brought suit specifically to enjoin the City from entering into a binding contract to convey the municipality’s public right-ofway or riparian rights. Although no binding written agreement is required necessarily for a claim to achieve ripeness, some of Appellees’ claims rest on governmental actions which were not envisioned specifically by earlier stages of the State Center Project and did not occur until after the MDA and/or First Amendment were executed. Appellees’ suggestion, in their brief, that these latter-arising claims save all claims (even those which arose at an earlier date) is without merit. Although the doctrine of laches may not bar a singular claim arising later in the process, Appellees’ inclusion of latter-arising claims does not save from a laches bar those claims which accrued earlier. Thus, for our analysis of the starting of the clock for ripeness, we organize Appellees’ claims together in groups according to when we deem the point of controversy became substantially certain. The majority of the claims arose out of events or actions envisioned in (or foretold by) the RFQ. The public issuance of the RFQ standing alone, however, is not substantially certain for ripeness purpose. Under the Procurement Law (assuming for 144 argumentative purposes it applies), prior to the issuance of an award, prospective bidders are permitted generally to file a complaint (until the time the bid is awarded) concerning the information listed in an RFP. Normally, up until the time of the awarding of a bid, the State may withdraw an RFP and change some of the provisions. By analogy, the awarding of a bid under an RFP is similar to the selection of the Master Developer under the RFQ in the present case. Thus, we must look to some further action by the State Agencies (other than the public issuance of the RFQ) to determine the time that the claims accrued as to subsequent actions predicated upon what the RFQ predicted would follow. First, the State’s intentions to select a Master Developer in the manner prescribed in the RFQ is not considered as finalized until the public announcement of the selection of the Developers on 21 March 2006. The procedures for the original selection of the Master Developer were set forth explicitly in the publicly issued RFQ in 2005. Although construction and leasing of the Project was not enforceable between the State and the Developers merely upon selection of the Developers, the awarding of the exclusive right to negotiate was the intended first stage in a series of envisioned stages required for the Project to reach fruition. The claimed illegality that caused Appellees asserted harm stemmed from this stage and, thus, it is the proper starting point for ripeness as to those claims related to those actions. In other words, the significance—and the alleged violation of the Procurement Law—does not occur when the MDA and/or the First Amendment were executed, but rather when the State Agencies agreed to negotiate only with the Developers in pursuit of the later stages outlined in the RFQ. After the 145 Developers were selected, these taxpayers could have filed suit seeking an injunction to preclude the State from expending further resources in the form of negotiations with the Master Developer chosen in an ultra vires manner, as well as the intended execution of the MDA with the Master Developer after the period of negotiations. 83 Instead, the taxpayers bided their time. Second, those claims regarding the nature of the Project as envisioned in the RFQ became finite at the very least by the time the BPW authorized the State Agencies to enter into the MDA. Although the earlier contracts (such as the LOI) were not binding, it is undisputable that the MDA bound the State and the Developers to the State Center Project. The taxpayers did not need to abide the date of execution of the MDA, but rather only until the controversy became substantially certain. The BPW authorized the State Center Agencies to enter the contract on 3 June 2009. At the very least, taxpayers could have maintained a suit at that point seeking an injunction to preclude the State from entering into this contract, which the taxpayers should have known would bind the State to later actions Appellees allege now as ultra vires and illegal, with the Developer that was chosen in an ultra vires manner. Instead, the taxpayers bided their time. 83 Even were we to agree with Appellees that the claim was not ripe until the State Agencies and the Developers executed a binding and enforceable agreement and, thus, they could not file suit this early, we would still impute the knowledge of the claim of illegal governmental action to them from that time. In that sense, they had a long lead time to prepare their suit and should have filed the suit more promptly after the execution of the MDA. 146 At that time the MDA was executed on 15 June 2009, there is no doubt that an enforceable, binding contract existed. All claims relating to the envisioned stages set forth in the RFQ accrued at that point. Particularly in light of the taxpayers’ knowledge of what the 2005 RFQ envisioned, the selection of the Master Developer in 2006, and the BPW authorization of the State Agencies to enter the MDA, Appellees could have filed suit more promptly in an effort to forestall further allegedly illegal pursuit of unauthorized objectives. Instead, Appellees continued to bide their time. The third group of claims includes those which related to alleged “material changes” in the First Amendment (departed from the terms set forth in the MDA). Appellees allege that these changes were so substantial that they could not have been envisioned at the time of the MDA and, thus, no claim existed prior to the adoption of these changes in the First Amendment. We agree that, to the extent that such changes were not predicted or called for in the MDA, they would accrue generally at the time of the First Amendment, rather than at the time of the execution of the MDA. Because we conclude ultimately that the time period between the First Amendment and the filing of the present lawsuit was unreasonable and prejudicial to the State Agencies and Developers, however, we do not consider whether these changes were so “material” as to warrant requiring a new selection of a Master Developer (assuming again, argumentatively, that the Procurement Law applies). Rather, we find it sufficient to assume that Appellees are correct that these changes were so material that the First Amendment represented a new violation upon which Appellees’ related claims ripened. 147 Lastly, the fourth group consists of various claims Appellees allege arose after the execution of the First Amendment. Appellees note that the BPW approved amendments on 15 December 2010 to four leases approved originally in July 2010. According to Appellees, the sample leases contained in the MDA and the First Amendment did not include sufficient details upon which their claims related thereto could be described as ripe. Perhaps had Appellees’s alleged violations relied upon the specific details set forth in either the original or amended leases, we might find some merit in their contention. In this case, however, Appellees’ argument is based on an alleged violation of the Procurement Code, which, for all practical purposes as regards their claims, was envisioned clearly in the RFQ and then set forth again—at great length—in the MDA and First Amendment. Because Appellees did not need to wait until the final binding document to file suit, these claims accrued, it seems to us, at the same time the State Agencies were authorized to enter into the MDA (alongside the third group of claims (the “material changes”) in the First Amendment). In sum, we group certain claims together that fall under the same umbrella of accrual. The first group, those claims envisioned by the RFQ that came to pass with the selection of the Developers, accrued at the very latest on 21 March 2006. The second group, those envisioned either by the RFQ and included in the executed MDA or envisioned initially in the MDA, accrued on 3 June 2009, the date that the BPW authorized the State Agencies to enter the agreement. The third group, those claims of material changes between the MDA and the First Amendment, accrued in July 2010, when the BPW authorized the State Agencies to enter the First Amendment. Lastly, the 148 other “material changes” which occurred after the First Amendment were not the basis of the alleged violations and, thus, we conclude that those claims should be grouped as falling under the same analysis of the “material changes” in the First Amendment because they were envisioned in the earlier stages.
Next, we consider the proper approach for determining what amount of time constitutes an unreasonable and unjustified delay. Although there is no bright-line rule, the doctrine of laches and statutes of limitations have an intertwined relationship that we must consider as a first step in this portion of the analysis. This Court has recognized that, where appropriate, we should look to the General Assembly for guidance in determining what amount of time is reasonable. Schaeffer v. Anne Arundel Cnty., 338 Md. 75, 81, 656 A.2d 751, 754 (1995); see also Frederick Rd., 360 Md. at 117, 756 A.2d at 985 (“When a case involves concurrent legal and equitable remedies, ‘the applicable statute of limitations for the legal remedy is equally applicable to the equitable one.’”) (quoting Schaeffer, 338 Md. at 81, 656 A.2d at 754). We analyzed the principles for analogizing statutes of limitations to the equitable defense of laches in Schaeffer v. Anne Arundel County, 338 Md. 75, 656 A.2d 751 (1995). There, we stated: Choosing the applicable measure of impermissible delay for cases where an equitable remedy is sought is most straightforward in cases when there are concurrent legal and equitable remedies and the applicable statute of limitations for the legal remedy is equally applicable to the equitable one. Schaeffer, 338 Md. at 81, 656 A.2d at 754 (citing Rettaliata v. Sullivan, 208 Md. 617, 621, 119 A.2d 420, 422 (1956); Dugan v. Gittings, 3 Gill 138, 161-62 (1845)). Thus, 149 “[i]n most cases involving an exclusively equitable remedy, we refer to the limitations period for the cause of action at law most analogous to the one in equity.” Id. “The authorities indicate that even when the remedy for a claimed right is only in equity, the period of limitations most nearly apposite at law will be invoked by an equity court, provided there is not present a more compelling equitable reason-such as fraud or other inequitable conduct which would cause injustice if the bar were interposed-why the action should not be barred.” Id. (quoting Stevens v. Bennett, 234 Md. 348, 351, 199 A.2d 221, 223-24 (1964)). “Generally, if there is no action at law directly analogous to the action in equity, the three-year statute of limitations found in Maryland Code (1974, 1989 Repl. Vol., 1994 Cum. Supp.), § 5-101 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article[84] will be used as a guideline.” Schaeffer, 338 Md. at 82, 656 A.2d at 754 (citing Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm’n v. C.I. Mitchell & Best Co., 303 Md. 544, 562, 495 A.2d 30, 39 (1985)). For example, in Washington Suburban, a case in which developers brought an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the collection of a “System Expansion Offset Charge” (“SEOC”) imposed by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (“WSSC”), we held that the proposed analogy was inappropriate. 303 Md. at 563, 495 A.2d at 39. In that case, the developer argued that the WSSC lacked the 84 Section 5-101 provides, A civil action at law shall be filed within three years from the date it accrues unless another provision of the Code provides a different period of time within which an action shall be commenced. Md. Code (1973, 2013 Repl. Vol.), Courts & Judicial Proceedings Art., § 5-101 (emphasis added). 150 authority to impose this new charge and, in the alternative, that even if the WSSC had such authority, the charge was unreasonable and void. The WSSC responded by asserting laches, and proposed “that the analogy be drawn [ ] to the 30 days provided by [Md. Code (1957, 1983 Repl. Vol., 1984 Cum. Supp.), Art. 29,] § 6-110(b),” 85 which provided a process for appealing certain actions of the WSSC to the Maryland Public Service Commission (“PSC”). Id. The Court rejected this proposal: That statute, however, applies to the special statutory remedy before the PSC while the issue now under consideration, WSSC's authority to adopt SEOC, is not subject to that special statutory remedy. Where, as here, the claim under consideration properly invokes the original jurisdiction of the circuit court, the analogy for laches should not be to a time limit for initiating a special statutory administrative remedy applicable to a different theory of the case. Id., 303 Md. at 563, 495 A.2d at 39. In this case, the State Agencies urge an analogy to the timeliness requirements in the Procurement Law’s Regulations. Title 21 of the Code of Maryland Regulations promulgates the State Procurement Regulations. COMAR 21.10.02.03B requires protests relating to the formation of a contract to be filed “no[] later than 7 days after the basis for protest is known or should have been known, whichever is earlier.” COMAR 21.10.02.03B. Before we confront the proffered analogy to the Procurement Law vel non, we conclude that, under the more generous analogy to the three-year statute of limitations, many of Appellees’ claims succumb to laches on that basis. The challenges to the 85 This statute was repealed by Acts 2010, c. 37, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 2010. 151 selection of the Developers were justiciable by no later than 21 March 2006. Laches bars those claims because Appellees did not file their Original Complaint until 17 December 2010. The State was open and transparent with the entire “unique” procurement process. The local newspapers covered the matter extensively. If the announced process was illegal, Appellees could have—and should have—brought their complaints on that score to court sooner than they did. In regards to the second group (those claims arising from events or actions envisioned in either the RFQ or MDA and made actual in the MDA) and third group (those claims arising from events or actions that represented allegedly “material changes” from the MDA to the First Amendment), we consider whether the less generous analogy to COMAR 21.10.02.03B makes sense in the context of this case. We note first that a strict timeliness requirement is reasonable generally for protests of alleged procurement infractions, as the COMAR section makes evident. Procurements are issued for services or goods that the government needs. Once a submission is awarded for the project or the order for goods, both the awardee and the government proceed (presumably promptly) to expend time and resources on the completion of the procurement’s goal. Allowing an extended period for protests to be brought forth would hinder the government’s ability to obtain the needed item or service (and would increase costs for developers and contractors interested in government contracts). The question in this case, though, is whether the seven day statutory limit, which is appropriate for bid protests to the Appeals Board, is appropriate for importation by analogy here where the complainants are not entitled to protest the action in any administrative avenue. 152 In light of Washington Suburban, which held that the statutory limitation for an administrative remedy was not appropriate for a claim for which a circuit court had original jurisdiction, we decline here to adopt the direct analogy to the COMAR provision. Rather, adhering to the flexible nature of the laches doctrine, we conclude nonetheless that, at least in this case involving time-sensitive procurement issues, 86 the delay until 17 December 2010 to file suit was unreasonable and unjustified for both of the latter groups of claims. Such a conclusion fits comfortably within our taxpayer standing doctrine jurisprudence. Although the motive of a taxpayer bringing suit is immaterial to whether the complainant has standing, the motive is not immaterial as to the relief sought in taxpayer standing suits. As the Court stated in Konig v. City of Baltimore, 128 Md. 465, 97 A. 837 (1916): While under the decisions a Court of Equity may grant relief to a taxpayer even if it is not satisfied that he is acting in good faith, or is influenced by proper motives, yet when it is called upon to determine what relief it will grant the plaintiff, there is no reason why the court should be compelled to shut its eyes and not see what the real facts are. This court refused to grant to Kelly, Piet & Co. any relief, although they were taxpayers as well as bidders, because it was really a controversy between 86 We recognize that some federal courts have adopted a per se rule with respect to the application of laches to claims arising out of time-sensitive issues involving elections, for example. See Ross v. State Bd. of Elections, 387 Md. 649, 671, 876 A.2d 692, 705 (2005) (citing Fulani v. Hogsett, 917 F.2d 1028, 1031 (7th Cir. 1990); Kay v. Austin, 621 F.2d 809, 813 (6th Cir. 1980); MacGovern v. Connolly, 637 F. Supp. 111, 115 (D. Mass. 1986); Barthelmes v. Morris, 342 F. Supp. 153, 160–61 (D. Md. 1972)). Similar to our conclusion in Ross, however, we need not decide here whether any per se rule should apply because the doctrine of laches is a flexible doctrine and, moreover, “[t]here may be situations in which such a rule would be inappropriate.” Id. 153 rival tradesmen for the custom of the city. [Kelly v. Mayor of Baltimore, 53 Md. 134 (1880).] Notwithstanding what we have said, the appellant claims to appear in this court for the purpose of protecting himself and other taxpayers from loss, but no other taxpayer has within the two years since the bill was filed asked to be made a party. The board of awards cannot be censured for endeavoring to save the city money in awarding the contract, if they believed they were complying with the charter. No other motive is suggested, and, when we remember of whom the board is composed, no improper motive will be presumed. Every principle of justice would prohibit an individual or a private corporation from profiting by such a mistake affecting an honest contractor, by keeping the fruits of the mistake without paying for them, and, while the rules of law applicable to officers of municipal corporations are different from those governing private corporations, it would not be regarded by the public, for whose benefit such rules have been adopted, as just to deprive a contractor of all compensation for work done and accepted by the city under such circumstances as exist in this case. 128 Md. at 478, 97 A. at 841 (emphasis added). Similarly, in this case, when analyzing what constitutes an unreasonable delay, we note that significant motivations of Appellees appear to be a “desire to stave off competition.” Their initial objections to the Project stemmed from the selection of the Master Developer, which was announced publicly by Governor Ehrlich on 21 March 2006, more than three years prior to Appellees’ filing of the Original Complaint. That they alleged additional violations should not save their complaint for equitable relief based on taxpayer standing. If the First Amendment’s “material” changes, which were approved and executed in September 2010, were the first stage of the alleged violations, we might be more likely to find reasonable the short time period between September 2010 and December 2010. Equity is not limited, however, to such a tunneled vision of 154 the circumstances. Instead, we are permitted to weigh all the facts. In doing so, the motivations of the parties matter and indicate that Appellees’ delay in bringing their claims was unreasonable and unjustified.