franklin v jackson

8/9/2019 Franklin v Jackson

1/42

I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MARYLAND

:RENEE FRANKLI N

:

v. : Ci vi l Act i on No. DKC 14- 0497

:CLARENCE J ACKSON, et al .

:

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pr esent l y pendi ng and r eady f or r esol ut i on i n t hi s Chur ch

di sput e i s t he mot i on t o di smi ss or , i n t he al t er nat i ve, f or

summary j udgment , f i l ed by Def endant s Cl arence J ackson, Gl or i a

McCl am- Magr uder , Deni se Ki l l en, Cl i f f or d Boswel l , Dor ot hy

Wi l l i ams, Lynda Pyl es, and J er i cho Bapt i st Chur ch Mi ni st r i es,

I nc. 1 ( ECF No. 7) . The i ssues have been f ul l y br i ef ed, and t he

cour t now r ul es, no hear i ng bei ng deemed necessary. Local Rul e

105. 6. For t he f ol l owi ng r easons, Def endant s’ mot i on wi l l be

gr ant ed.

I. Background

Thi s l awsui t ar i ses f r om a l ongst andi ng di sput e concer ni ng

t he cont r ol and gover nance of J er i cho Bapt i st Chur ch Mi ni st r i es,

I nc. ( “t he Chur ch”) , l ocat ed i n Landover , Pr i nce Geor ge’ s

Count y, Maryl and. The sanct uar y i s known as t he “J er i cho Ci t y

of Pr ai se. ” ( ECF No. 7- 19) .

1 The par t i es r ef er t o J er i cho Bapt i st Chur ch Mi ni st r i es,I nc. as t he “Nomi nal Def endant . ”

Case 8:14-cv-00497-DKC Document 12 Filed 03/13/15 Page 1 of 42


2/42

2

Pl ai nt i f f Renee Fr ankl i n ( “Pl ai nt i f f ”) br i ngs thi s act i on

der i vat i vel y on behal f of t he Chur ch agai nst Def endant s Cl ar ence

J ackson, Gl or i a McCl am- Magruder , Deni se Ki l l en, Cl i f f or d

Boswel l , Dor ot hy Wi l l i ams, and Lynda Pyl es ( col l ect i vel y, “t he

Boar d” or “Def endant Trust ees”) , who ar e t r ust ees on t he Boar d

of J er i cho Bapt i st Chur ch Mi ni st r i es, I nc. ( “J er i cho Mar yl and”) ,

a Maryl and non- st ock rel i gi ous cor porat i on f ormed t o manage the

asset s, est at e, pr oper t y, i nt er est s, and i nher i t ance of t he

Chur ch. ( ECF No. 7- 8) . 2 Accor di ng t o t he compl ai nt , i n 1962,

t he l at e Bi shop J ames R. Peebl es, Sr . and Apost l e Bet t y Peebl es

creat ed a Di st r i ct of Col umbi a non- pr of i t r el i gi ous cor por at i on

t o conduct busi ness on behal f of t he Chur ch. ( ECF No. 1 ¶ 15) .

Accor di ng t o Pl ai nt i f f , i n 1996, t he Boar d of Tr ust ees consi st ed

of Apost l e Bet t y Peebl es ( now deceased) , J ames Peebl es, J r . ( now

deceased) , Anne Wesl ey, and Def endant Dorot hy Wi l l i ams. ( Id. ¶

16) . Bi shop J oel Peebl es j oi ned t he Boar d i n 1997. ( Id. ¶ 17) .

That board hel d of f i ce unt i l Oct ober 2010. ( I d. at ¶ 18) .

Apost l e Bet t y Peebl es di ed on Oct ober 12, 2010. ( Id. ¶ 19) .

Pl ai nt i f f asser t s t hat “[ a] f t er Apost l e Bet t y Peebl es’ passi ng,

t he i ndi vi dual Def endant s sei zed cont r ol of t he Chur ch by and

t hr ough i l l i ci t and cl andest i ne means, whi ch i ncl uded but [ wer e]

2 I n revi ewi ng a mot i on to di smi ss, t he cour t may consi deral l egat i ons i n t he compl ai nt , mat t er s of publ i c r ecor d, anddocument s at t ached to t he mot i on t o di smi ss t hat ar e i nt egr al t ot he compl ai nt and aut hent i c. See Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem’lHosp., 572 F. 3d 176, 180 ( 4t h Ci r . 2009) .



3/42

3

not l i mi t ed t o: f r aud, f or ger y, and mi sr epr esent at i on. ” ( Id. ¶

20) .

Pl ai nt i f f asser t s t hat Def endant Tr ust ees “sei zed” cont r ol

of t he Boar d f ol l owi ng t he deat h of Apost l e Bet t y Peebl es, but

di d not announce t hei r sei zur e t o t he Pl ai nt i f f , t he

congr egat i on, or the 1997 Boar d. ( Id. ¶ 21) . Pl ai nt i f f al l eges

t hat soon af t er Def endant Tr ust ees gai ned cont r ol of t he Chur ch,

Def endant Tr ust ees el ect ed t o di ssol ve t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a

char t er and cr eat e a Mar yl and char t er . ( Id. ¶ 23) . The

Di st r i ct of Col umbi a ent i t y mer ged i nt o t he successor Mar yl and

ent i t y; ar t i cl es of mer ger wer e f i l ed on November 1, 2010. ( ECF

Nos. 7- 3) . Pl ai nt i f f asser t s t hat t he i ndi vi dual Def endant s

vot ed t hemsel ves as t he Tr ust ees on t he Boar d of t he Maryl and

char t er on Oct ober 30, 2010. ( ECF No. 1 ¶ 24) . The i ndi vi dual

Def endant s f i l ed Ar t i cl es of I ncor por at i on, whi ch wer e accept ed

by t he Mar yl and Depar t ment of Assessment s and Taxat i on on

December 15, 2010. ( ECF No. 7- 8) . The Ar t i cl es of

I ncor por at i on st at e t hat t he i ndi vi dual Def endant s have been

el ect ed by t he Member s of t he congr egat i on of J er i cho Bapt i st

Chur ch Mi ni st er i es, I nc. t o serve as t r ust ees “i n t he name and

on behal f of t he Chur ch t o manage i t s asset s, est at e, pr oper t y,

i nt er est s and i nher i t ance. ” ( Id. at 3) .

Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed a compl ai nt on Febr uar y 20, 2014, asser t i ng

si x causes of act i on: ( 1) br each of f i duci ar y dut y ( count I ) ;



4/42

4

( 2) gr oss mi smanagement ( count I I ) ; ( 3) unj ust enr i chment ( count

I I I ) ; ( 4) gr oss wast e of cor por at e asset s ( count I V) ; ( 5)

noncompl i ance wi t h Md. Code, Corps. & Assoc. § 5- 302 ( count V) 3;

and ( 6) ci vi l conspi r acy ( count VI ) . ( ECF No. 1) . The

compl ai nt assert s t hat Def endant s have caused t he congr egat i onal

membershi p t o pl ummet f r om 15, 000 members t o what i s now a mer e

t hi r t y ( 30) member s. ( ECF No. 1 ¶ 35) . Pl ai nt i f f f ur t her

al l eges t hat t i t hes and of f er i ngs have di mi ni shed i n excess of

ni nety percent and Def endant s have hi r ed t hemsel ves t o run and

oper at e t he dai l y oper at i ons of t he Chur ch. ( Id. ¶¶ 37- 38) .

The compl ai nt f ur t her avers t hat “i mmedi at el y upon t aki ng

of f i ce[ , ] Def endant s[ ] Wi l l i ams, Ki l l en, and J ackson al l vot ed

f or t hemsel ves t o r ecei ve subst ant i al pay r ai ses i n t he

t housands of dol l ar s. Fur t her mor e, Def endant s[ ] J ackson and

Ki l l en have r ecei ved t he hi ghest pay rai ses i n t he hi st or y of

t he [ Chur ch] , and t hose r ai ses wer e pr ovi ded wi t hout

j ust i f i cat i on. ” ( Id. ¶ 40) . Pl ai nt i f f bel i eves t hat Def endant s

Ki l l en and J ackson are embezzl i ng money f r om t he Chur ch “i n t he

hundr eds of t housands of dol l ar s. ” ( Id. ¶ 43) . Fi nal l y,

Pl ai nt i f f asser t s t hat “Def endant s have t er mi nat ed t he

congr egat i onal membershi p of t hose [ who] have quest i oned any of

t hei r i l l i ci t act i ons and behavi or . ” ( Id. ¶ 41) .

3 Pl ai nt i f f mi sl abel s t hi s as count I V i n her compl ai nt , buti t shoul d be count V. Mor eover , t hi s i s t he onl y cl ai m t hatPl ai nt i f f asser t s as a di r ect, r at her t han a der i vat i ve, cl ai m.



5/42

5

Def endant s moved t o di smi ss or , i n t he al t er nat i ve, f or

summary j udgment . ( ECF No. 7) . Pl ai nt i f f opposed t he mot i on

( ECF No. 10) , and Def endant s r epl i ed ( ECF No. 11) .

II. Analysis

Def endant s make mul t i pl e ar gument s f or di smi ssal . Fi r st ,

Def endant s ar gue t hat t he Nomi nal Def endant shoul d be r eal i gned

as a pl ai nt i f f , t her eby dest r oyi ng compl et e di ver si t y.

Al t er nat i vel y, Def endant s asser t t hat t hi s case shoul d be

di smi ssed or st ayed under t he Colorado River abst ent i on

doct r i ne. Def endant s al so ar gue t hat : Pl ai nt i f f l acks st andi ng

t o br i ng t hi s der i vat i ve act i on because she i s not a member of

t he Chur ch; t he compl ai nt f ai l s t o pl ead demand f ut i l i t y

r equi r ed f or der i vat i ve l awsui t s; t he cl ai m f or br each of

f i duci ar y dut y does not sur vi ve di smi ssal ; Pl ai nt i f f ’ s cl ai m f or

vi ol at i on of Md. Code Ann. Cor ps. & Assocs. § 5- 302 i s t i me-

bar r ed and ot her wi se subj ect t o di smi ssal ; and ci vi l conspi r acy

i s not an i ndependent cause of act i on and al so i s t i me- bar r ed.

( ECF No. 7- 1, at 17- 21) .

A. Diversity Jurisdiction

Al t hough di ver si t y j ur i sdi cti on i s di sput ed, nei t her si de

di sput es t he ci t i zenshi p of t he par t i es. Pl ai nt i f f i s a ci t i zen

of t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a. Wi t h t he except i on of Def endant

Deni se Ki l l en, who resi des i n Vi r gi ni a, t he r emai ni ng Def endant

Tr ust ees and J er i cho Mar yl and, t he Nomi nal Def endant , ar e



6/42

6

ci t i zens of Mar yl and. ( See ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 4- 12) . Def endants

ar gue t hat “J er i cho Mar yl and i s t he t r ue pl ai nt i f f , as t he sui t

has been br ought t o r edr ess t he i nj ur i es suf f er ed and t o be

suf f er ed by t he Nomi nal Def endant . ” ( ECF No. 7- 1, at 9)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Def endant s st at e t hat

r eal i gni ng J er i cho Mar yl and as a pl ai nt i f f dest r oys compl et e

di ver si t y because al l but one of t he Def endant Tr ust ees are

ci t i zens of Mar yl and.

“ I n a der i vat i ve sui t , t he corporat i on . . . i s i ni t i al l y

named as a def endant t o ensur e i t s presence, af t er whi ch i t may

be al i gned accor di ng t o i t s r eal i nt er est s. ” Office of

Strategic Services, Inc. v. Sadeghian, 528 F. App’ x 336, 349 ( 4t h

Ci r . 2013) ; Smith v. Sperling , 354 U. S. 91, 97 ( 1957) . I n a

der i vat i ve sui t , “[ t ] he cl ai m pr essed by t he st ockhol der agai nst

di r ect or s or t hi r d par t i es i s not hi s own but t he

cor por at i on’ s. ” Ross v. Bernhard , 396 U. S. 531, 538 ( 1970) .

Pl ai nt i f f ar gues t hat i n der i vat i ve act i ons, cour t s must l ook

f or t he pr esence of “ant agoni sm” bet ween t he sharehol ders and

corporat e management . Pl ai nt i f f pr emi ses her ar gument on Doctor

v. Harrington, 196 U. S. 579 ( 1905) and Smith v. Sperling , 354

U. S. 91 ( 1957) . “At t i mes, [ ] t he nomi nal cor por at e par t y, on

whose behal f t he sui t i s brought , may be ant agoni st i c t o t he

shar ehol der pl ai nt i f f . ” Racetime Investments, LLC v. Moser ,

Ci v. Act i on No. 3: 12CV860- HEH, 2013 WL 987834, at *2 ( E. D. Va.



7/42


8/42

8

Def endant s’ r el i ance on General Technology Applications,

Inc. v. Exro LTDA, 388 F. 3d 114 ( 4t h Ci r . 2004) , i n suppor t of

r eal i gni ng J er i cho Mar yl and as a pl ai nt i f f , i s mi spl aced. I n

t hat case Exro Lt da. ( “Exro”) , a Col umbi an cor por at i on, and GTA,

I nc. ( “GTA”) , a Vi r gi ni a cor por at i on, f or med a l i mi t ed l i abi l i t y

company, EXG, L. L. C. ( “EXG”) , t o pur sue a j oi nt vent ur e

t oget her . Id. at 117. Nami ng EXG as a nomi nal def endant , Exr o

asser t ed sever al der i vat i ve cl ai ms agai nst GTA on behal f of EXG

f or GTA’ s al l eged f ai l ur e t o make a r equi r ed capi t al

cont r i but i on and t o meet ot her obl i gat i ons under t he oper at i ng

agr eement . Id. at 116- 17. The Uni t ed St ates Cour t of Appeal s

f or t he Four t h Ci r cui t f ound t hat t he j oi nt l y- creat ed LLC, EXG,

was a r eal par t y i n i nt er est because t he cont r over sy cent er ed on

l egal r i ght s bel ongi ng t o EXG. Id. at 121 n. 3. Not abl y, t he

Four t h Ci r cui t concl uded t hat no matter how it aligned EXG ,

di ver si t y di d not exi st . I f t he cour t al i gned EXG as a

def endant , t hen Exro, a Col ombi an ci t i zen, woul d be sui ng EXG,

anot her Col ombi an ci t i zen. I f EXG was char act er i zed as a

pl ai nt i f f , EXG, a ci t i zen of Vi r gi ni a as wel l as Col ombi a, woul d

be sui ng GTA, anot her ci t i zen of Vi r gi ni a. Thus, t he Four t h

Ci r cui t di d not need t o r esol ve t he r eal i gnment i ssue because

di ver si t y was dest r oyed r egar dl ess. Gen. Tech. poi nt ed out ,

however , t hat “[ g] ener al l y, t he r epr esent ed ent i t y (i . e. , t he



9/42

9

ent i t y on whose behal f t he sui t i s i ni t i at ed) . . . i s al i gned as

a def endant . ” Id. at 120.

Based on t he f oregoi ng, t he Nomi nal Def endant need not be

r eal i gned as a pl ai nt i f f her e.

B. Colorado River Abstention

Def endant s next argue t hat t hi s act i on shoul d be di smi ssed

or st ayed pur suant t o the doct r i ne est abl i shed by t he Supr eme

Cour t of t he Uni t ed St at es in Colorado River Water Conservation

District v. United States, 424 U. S. 800 ( 1976) .

Gener al l y, “our dual syst em of f eder al and st at e

gover nment s al l ows par al l el act i ons t o pr oceed t o j udgment unt i l

one becomes precl usi ve of t he ot her . ” Chase Brexton Health

Services, Inc. v. Maryland , 411 F. 3d 457, 462 ( 4t h Ci r . 2005) .

Thus, t he mer e f act t hat an act i on i s pendi ng i n a st at e cour t

“i s no bar t o pr oceedi ngs concer ni ng the same mat t er i n the

Feder al cour t havi ng j ur i sdi ct i on. ” McLaughlin v. United Va.

Bank, 955 F. 2d 930, 934 ( 4t h Ci r . 1992) ( i nt er nal mar ks omi t t ed) .

I ndeed, “f eder al cour t s are bound by a ‘ vi r t ual l y unf l aggi ng

obl i gat i on . . . t o exer ci se t he j ur i sdi cti on gi ven t hem. ’ ”

Chase Brexton, 411 F. 3d at 462 ( quoting McClellan v. Carland ,

217 U. S. 268, 282 ( 1910) ) . I t i s wel l est abl i shed, however ,

t hat “f eder al cour t s may decl i ne t o exer ci se t hei r j ur i sdi ct i on,

i n ot her wi se ‘ except i onal ci r cumst ances, ’ wher e denyi ng a

f eder al f or um woul d cl ear l y ser ve an i mpor t ant count er vai l i ng



10/42

10

i nterest . ’ ” Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U. S. 706, 716

( 1996) ( quoting Colorado River , 424 U. S. at 813) . The

“except i onal ci r cumst ances” i n whi ch abst ent i on i s appr opr i at e

“i nevi t abl y rel at e t o a pol i cy of avoi di ng unnecessar y

const i t ut i onal deci si ons of accommodat i ng f eder al - st at e

rel at i ons. ” Chase Brexton, 411 F. 3d at 462. “Abst ent i on f r om

t he exer ci se of f eder al j ur i sdi ct i on i s t he except i on, not t he

rul e. ” Colorado River , 424 U. S. at 813.

The “t hreshol d quest i on i n deci di ng whet her Colorado River

abst ent i on i s appr opr i at e i s whet her t her e ar e par al l el f eder al

and st at e sui t s. ” Chase Brexton, 411 F. 3d at 463. I f t he sui t s

ar e par al l el , t he cour t must bal ance a number of f act or s i n

consi der i ng whet her “except i onal ci r cumst ances” ar e pr esent ed,

t her eby war r ant i ng i t s abst ent i on. See Gannett Co v. Clark

Constr. Group, Inc., 286 F. 3d 737, 741 ( 4t h Ci r . 2002) .

“Si mul t aneous f eder al and st at e sui t s are deemed par al l el

i f ‘ subst ant i al l y t he same par t i es l i t i gat e subst ant i al l y t he

same i ssues. ’ ” Extra Storagge Space, LLC v. Maisel-Hollins

Development, Co., 527 F. Supp. 2d 462, 466 ( D. Md. 2007) ( quoting

New Beckley Mining Corp. v. Int’l Union, UMWA, 946 F. 2d 1072,

1073 ( 4t h Ci r . 1991) ) . The si mi l ar i t y of t he sui t s i s gener al l y

assessed i n t er ms of t he i dent i t y of t he par t i es, t he l egal

i ssues, and t he r emedi es sought i n t he r espect i ve cases. See

Great American Ins. Co. v. Gross, 468 F. 3d 199, 207- 08 ( 4t h Ci r .



11/42

11

2006) . “Al t hough t he par t i es i n t he concur r ent sui t s need not

be i dent i cal , t he Four t h Ci r cui t has st r i ct l y const r ued t he

r equi r ement t hat t he par t i es be subst ant i al l y t he same. ” Extra

Storage Space, LLC v. Maisel-Hollins Development, Co., 527

F. Supp. 2d 462, 466 ( D. Md. 2007) .

Def endant s ar gue t hat t her e i s a si mi l ar act i on cur r ent l y

pendi ng i n t he Ci r cui t Cour t f or Pr i nce Geor ge’ s Count y: Board

of Trustees of Jericho Baptist Church Ministries, Inc. v. Joel

R. Peebles, Sr., et al., Case No. CAL10- 33647 ( “Trustees v.

Peebles”) . On Oct ober 19, 2010, t he Boar d of Tr ust ees of t he

J er i cho Bapt i st Chur ch Mi ni st r i es f i l ed a compl ai nt i n t he

Ci r cui t Cour t f or Pr i nce Geor ge’ s Count y agai nst J oel R.

Peebl es, Sr . and Wi l l i am Meadows, f or mer l y associ at ed wi t h t he

Chur ch, al l egi ng that Mr . Peebl es and Mr . Meadows were not

t r ust ees of t he Chur ch, but t hat nonet hel ess t hey had engaged i n

conduct seeki ng t o est abl i sh t hei r cont r ol of t he Chur ch. The

second amended compl ai nt agai nst J oel Peebl es and Wi l l i ams

Meadows i ncl udes t he f ol l owi ng causes of act i on: ( 1) t empor ar y

r est r ai ni ng or der and pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on; ( 2) decl ar at or y

r el i ef ; ( 3) mi sappr opr i at i on of f unds; and ( 4) account i ng. ( See

Case No. 13- cv- 02586- PJ M, at ECF No. 37) . 4 Mr . Peebl es and Mr .

4 Mr . Peebl es and Mr . Meadows l at er f i l ed a Thi r d- Par t yCompl ai nt agai nst t he St at e of Mar yl and, Sher i f f Hi gh, Pr i nceGeor ge’ s Count y, and Sher i f f ’ s Deput i es Mi chael Si mms and Kevi nMassi e, asser t i ng st at e l aw cl ai ms and a vi ol at i on of 42 U. S. C.



12/42

12

Meadows count ercl ai med agai nst bot h J er i cho Maryl and and

i ndi vi dual boar d member s, al l egi ng that t he t r ust ee member s

wer e not i n f act l awf ul member s, and t hat t hey, not Mr . Peebl es

and Mr . Meadows, had unl awf ul l y sei zed cont r ol of t he Chur ch.

On Oct ober 24, 2011, t he Ci r cui t Cour t f or Pr i nce Geor ge’ s

County gr ant ed summary j udgment i n f avor of t he Boar d of

Tr ust ees of J er i cho Mar yl and, decr eei ng t hat t he exi st i ng Boar d

member s i ndeed were t he l awf ul Board of t he Chur ch, and

permanent l y enj oi ni ng Mr . Peebl es and Mr . Meadows f r om

i nt er f er i ng wi t h Chur ch oper at i ons. See Jericho Baptist Church

Ministries, Inc. v. Peebles, Ci v. No. PJ M 13- 2586, at ECF No.

84. The Cour t of Speci al Appeal s of Maryl and, however , r ever sed

t hat deci si on and r emanded t he case t o the Ci r cui t Cour t ,

f i ndi ng t hat a genui ne di sput e of mat er i al f act exi st ed as t o

whet her Mr . Peebl es was a member of t he Board. The appeal s

cour t ’ s mandat e i ssued on Oct ober 19, 2012, and i t does not

appear t hat t he i ssue has been r esol ved f i nal l y i n t he Ci r cui t

Cour t . ( Id. at ECF No. 114) .

§ 1983. Pr i nce Geor ge’ s Count y r emoved t he case t o t he Uni t edSt at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct of Mar yl and, and J udgeMessi t t e remanded t he case t o Pr i nce George’ s Count y Ci r cui tCour t by memorandum opi ni on and or der i ssued on Oct ober 30,2013. See Jericho Baptist Church Ministries, Inc. v. Peebles,Ci v. No. PJ M 13- 2586, 2013 WL 5915239 ( D. Md. Oct . 30, 2013) . The docket f r om J udge Mess i t t e’ s case cont ai ns some of t heappl i cabl e f i l i ngs f r om t he acti on cur r ent l y pendi ng i n t heCi r cui t Cour t f or Pr i nce Geor ge’ s Count y.



13/42

13

Mr . Peebl es and Mr . Meadows f i l ed f our t h amended

count er cl ai ms, i n whi ch t hey char act er i ze t hei r case as

pr esent i ng t he i ssue “of who ar e t he l awf ul members of t he Boar d

of Tr ust ees of J er i cho Bapt i st Chur ch Mi ni st r i es, I nc. ” ( ECF

No. 7- 11 ¶ 6) . The f our t h amended count ercl ai ms seek

decl ar at or y and i nj unct i ve r el i ef and asser t , inter alia, t he

f ol l owi ng cl ai ms: ( 1) account i ng; ( 2) const r ucti ve t r ust ; ( 3)

br each of f i duci ar y dut y; ( 4) unj ust enr i chment ; ( 5) i nt ent i onal

mi sr epr esent at i on; ( 6) i nt ent i onal mi sr epr esent at i on by

conceal ment ; ( 7) vi ol at i on of Md. Code, Cor ps. & Assoc. § 5- 302;

and ( 8) const r uct i ve f r aud. 5 ( See ECF No. 7- 11) .

Def endant s bel i eve t hat Trustees v. Peebles and t he i nst ant

act i on meet t he r equi r ement s f or par al l el sui t s. They ar gue:

[ The t wo l awsui t s] i nvol ve subst ant i al l y t hesame par t i es, i.e., J er i cho Mar yl and, t he

Tr ust ees, and par t i es who ar e l ocked i n adi sput e wi t h t he Tr ust ees over cont r ol of J er i cho Mar yl and; and subst ant i al l y t he samei ssues, i.e. , who r i ght f ul l y cont r ol s t hechur ch and whether t he Tr ust ees have, orhave not , commi t t ed sel f - deal i ng,mi smanagement , br each of f i duci ary dut i es,and other al l eged wr ongs.

( ECF No. 7- 1, at 11- 12) .

5 On Februar y 25, 2014, Mr . Peebl es and Mr . Meadowsdi smi ssed t hei r t hi r d- par t y cl ai ms agai nst t he Gover nment al Thi r d- Par t y Def endant s i n t he Ci r cui t Cour t f or Pr i nce George’ sCount y. ( See ECF No. 7- 13, st i pul at i on of di smi ssal ) .Def endant s i ndi cate t hat t he remai nder of t he f our t h amendedcount er cl ai ms r emai n pendi ng. ( See ECF No. 7- 1, at 11) .



14/42

14

Def endant s’ ar gument s ar e unavai l i ng. Pl ai nt i f f i s not a

par t y to t he st at e cour t act i on. See, e.g., Cognate

BioServices, Inc. v. Smith, Ci v. No. WDQ- 13- 1797, 2014 WL

988857, at *4 ( D. Md. Mar . 12, 2014) ( “I n t hi s case, t he f our

addi t i onal pl ai nt i f f s and Al an Smi t h Consul t i ng ar e not par t i es

i n t he st at e case. Abst ai ni ng i n f avor of t he st at e pr oceedi ng

woul d depr i ve t he f our pl ai nt i f f s of t he oppor t uni t y t o l i t i gat e

t hei r cl ai ms. ”) ; Great American Ins., 468 F. 3d at 208 ( “I n t hi s

case, [ pl ai nt i f f ] i s not a par t y t o any of t he Al abama st at e

cour t act i ons. Accor di ngl y, t o abst ai n i n f avor of t he Al abama

st at e cour t act i ons woul d depr i ve [ pl ai nt i f f ] of t he oppor t uni t y

t o l i t i gat e i t s cl ai ms. ”) . Mor eover , al t hough t he st at e cour t

act i on undoubt edl y ar i ses out of t he same set of f act s – i.e.,

t he schi sm wi t hi n t he Chur ch bet ween Def endant Trust ees and

suppor t er s of J oel Peebl es – t he par t i es, l egal i ssues, and t he

r emedi es sought i n t he t wo cases ar e suf f i ci ent l y di st i nct . I t

does not appear t hat t he f our t h amended count ercl ai ms ar e

asser t ed der i vat i vel y on behal f of t he Chur ch; i nst ead, J oel

Peebl es and Mr . Meadows seek a rul i ng f r om t he cour t t hat t he

Def endant Trust ees ar e “not members of t he Boar d of Trust ees of

t he Chur ch, and t hat t he [ ‘ r eal ’ ] Boar d of Tr ust ees consi st s

onl y of Past or J oel Peebl es, El der Meadows, and Deacon Wesl ey. ”

( ECF No. 7- 11, at 46) . The i nst ant l awsui t does not cent er

ar ound member shi p of the Board of Tr ust ees, however . I t appear s



15/42

15

t hat i n t he st at e cour t act i on, bot h t he Tr ust ees and J oel

Peebl es pur por t t o r epr esent t he i nt er est s of t he Chur ch,

al t hough none of t he count er cl ai ms ar e r ai sed der i vat i vel y.

Moreover , on Apr i l 18, 2012, Def endant Trust ees sent an

expul si on l et t er t o J oel Peebl es, t er mi nat i ng hi s empl oyment

wi t h J er i cho Mar yl and and expel l i ng hi m f r om member shi p i n t he

Chur ch pur suant t o Ar t i cl e 2. 15 of t he By- Laws. ( See ECF No. 7-

10) . I n cont r ast , t he i nst ant di sput e i nvol ves a der i vat i ve

l awsui t br ought by a pur por t ed member of t he Chur ch on i t s

behal f essent i al l y al l egi ng mi sappr opr i at i on of Chur ch f unds by

Def endant Trust ees.

The Four t h Ci r cui t expl ai ned i n Ackerman v. ExxonMobil

Corp., 734 F. 3d 237, 248- 49 ( 4t h Ci r . 2013) :

Because Colorado River abst ent i on i spr emi sed on consi der at i on of “wi se j udi ci al

admi ni st r at i on” r at her t han t he “wei ght i erconsi der at i ons of const i t ut i onaladj udi cat i on and st at e- f eder al r el at i ons”under pi nni ng ot her abst ent i on doct r i nes,Colorado River , 424 U. S. at 818, i t sappl i cat i on i s pr oper i n a “mor e l i mi t ed”r ange of ci r cumst ances, id. When cour t sconsi der r equest s t o abst ai n, t he t ask “i snot t o f i nd some subst ant i al r eason f or t heexercise of f eder al j ur i sdi cti on by t hedi str i ct cour t , r at her , our t ask i s to

ascer t ai n whet her t her e exi st except i onalci r cumst ances, t he cl ear est of j ust i f i cat i ons, . . . t o j ust i f y t hesurrender of t hat j ur i sdi ct i on. ” Moses H.Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.,460 U. S. 1, 25- 26 ( 1983) ( i nt er nal quot at i onmarks omi t t ed) .



16/42

16

( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) .

Because the t wo pr oceedi ngs are not par al l el , t he cour t

need not consi der t he f act or s j ust i f yi ng “except i onal

ci r cumst ances” under Colorado River .

C. Standing

Any pl ai nt i f f seeki ng t o i nvoke t he j ur i sdi ct i on of a

f eder al cour t must est abl i sh st andi ng. The doct r i ne of st andi ng

consi st s of t wo di st i nct s “str ands”: const i t ut i onal st andi ng

pur suant t o Ar t i cl e I I I and pr udent i al st andi ng. See Elk Grove

Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow , 542 U. S. 1, 11 ( 2004) . The

r equi r ement s f or const i t ut i onal st andi ng r ef l ect t hat Ar t i cl e

I I I “conf i nes t he f eder al cour t s t o adj udi cat i ng actual ‘ cases’

and ‘ cont r over si es. ’ ” Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 750

( 1984) ; see also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555,

560 ( 1993) ( “[ S] t andi ng i s an essent i al and unchangi ng par t of

t he case- or - cont r over sy r equi r ement of Ar t i cl e I I I . ”) . To

est abl i sh Ar t i cl e I I I st andi ng, a pl ai nt i f f must demonst r at e

t hat :

( 1) [ she] has suf f er ed an “i nj ur y i n f act ”t hat i s ( a) concrete and par t i cul ar i zedand ( b) act ual or i mmi nent , not

conj ect ur al or hypot het i cal ; ( 2) t hei nj ur y i s f ai r l y t r aceabl e t o t hechal l enged act i on of t he def endant ; and( 3) i t i s l i kel y, as opposed t o mer el yspecul at i ve, t hat t he i nj ur y wi l l ber edr essed by a f avor abl e deci si on.



17/42

17

Doe v. Obama, 631 F. 3d 157, 160 ( 4t h Ci r . 2011) ( quoting Friends

of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528

U. S. 167, 180- 81 ( 2000) . I n cont r ast t o Ar t i cl e I I I st andi ng,

pr udent i al st andi ng “‘ embodi es j udi ci al l y sel f - i mposed l i mi t s on

t he exer ci se of f eder al j ur i sdi ct i on. ’ ” Elk Grove Unified Sch.

Distr., 542 U. S. at 11. One such l i mi t at i on i s t hat “t he

pl ai nt i f f gener al l y must asser t hi s own l egal r i ght s and

i nt er ests, and cannot r est hi s cl ai m t o r el i ef on t he l egal

r i ght s or i nt erests of t hi rd part i es. ’ ” Warth v. Seldin, 422

U. S. 490, 499 ( 1975) .

Anal ysi s of t he st andi ng quest i on i n t hi s case i nvol ves

f ur t her pr udent i al concer ns, gi ven t he r el i gi ous i nst i t ut i on

t hat i s at t he hear t of t he cont r over sy. Mat t er s of

eccl esi ast i cal doct r i ne somet i mes are not amenabl e t o r evi ew by

ci vi l cour t s. As t he Four t h Ci r cui t reasoned i n Dixon v.

Edwards, 290 F. 3d 699, 714 ( 4t h Ci r . 2002) :

As we expl ai n bel ow, t he ci vi l cour t s of ourcount r y ar e obl i ged t o pl ay a l i mi t ed r ol ei n r esol vi ng chur ch di sput es. Thi s l i mi t edr ol e i s pr emi sed on Fi r st Amendmentpr i nci pl es t hat pr ecl ude a cour t f r omdeci di ng i ssues of r el i gi ous doct r i ne andpract i ce, or f rom i nt er f er i ng wi t h i nt ernal

chur ch government . When a civil disputemerely involves a church as a party,

however, and when it can be decided without

resolving an ecclesiastical controversy, a

civil court may properly exercise

jurisdiction. The cour t s must avoi d anyr el i gi ous i nqui r y, however , and t hey may do



18/42

18

so by def er r i ng t o t he hi ghest aut hor i t ywi t hi n t he chur ch.

( emphasi s added) . “I n keepi ng wi t h t he Fi r st Amendment ’ s

pr oscri pt i on agai nst t he ‘ est abl i shment of r el i gi on’ or

pr ohi bi t i ng t he ‘ f r ee exer ci se t her eof , ’ ci vi l cour t s have l ong

t aken car e not t o i nt er meddl e i n i nt er nal eccl esi ast i cal

di sput es. ” Bell v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 126 F. 3d 328,

330 ( 4t h Ci r . 1997) . The Four t h Ci r cui t expl ai ned i n Bell, 126

F. 3d at 331:

Al t hough Gonzalez [ v. Roman CatholicArchbishop, 280 U. S. 1 ( 1929) ] and ot her casesal l owed t he possi bi l i t y of “‘ mar gi nal ci vi lcour t r evi ew’ under t he nar r ow r ubr i cs of‘ f r aud’ or ‘ col l usi on’ when chur ch t r i bunal sact i n bad f ai t h f or secul ar pur poses, ” t heCour t i n Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v.Milivojevich, 426 U. S. 696 ( 1976) , abandonedany “ar bi t r ar i ness” except i on, movi ng yetf ur t her f rom any rol e f or c i vi l court s i neccl esi ast i cal di sput es. Id. at 713. It

has thus become established that thedecisions of religious entities about the

appointment and removal of ministers and

persons in other positions of similar

theological significance are beyond the ken

of civil courts. Rather , such cour t s mustdef er t o t he deci si ons of r el i gi ousor gani zat i ons “on mat t er s of di sci pl i ne,f ai t h, i nt er nal or gani zat i on, oreccl es i ast i cal rul e, custom or l aw. ” Id. The Supreme Cour t expl ai ned, “[ i ] t i s t he

essence of r el i gi ous f ai t h t hateccl esi ast i cal deci si ons ar e r eached and ar et o be accept ed as mat t er s of f ai t h whetheror not r at i onal or measur abl e by obj ect i vecr i t er i a. ” Id. at 714- 15.

( emphasi s added) .



19/42

19

The Fi r st Amendment does not r emove f r om t he pur vi ew of

ci vi l cour t s, however , al l cont r over si es i nvol vi ng r el i gi ous

i nst i tut i ons. Jones v. Wolf , 443 U. S. 595, 602- 03 ( 1979) ;

American Union of Baptists, Inc. v. Trustees of Particular

Primitive Baptist Church at Black Rock, Inc. et al., 335 Md.

564, 574 (1994) ( “Each set of ci r cumst ances must be eval uat ed on

an i ndi vi dual basi s by t he cour t t o det er mi ne whet her , under t he

f act s of t hat par t i cul ar case, a cour t woul d be f or ced t o wander

i nt o t he ‘ t heol ogi cal t hi cket ’ i n or der t o r ender a deci si on. ”) .

Mar yl and cour t s opt t o appl y neut r al ci vi l l aw pr i nci pl es

whenever possi bl e t o resol ve chur ch di sput es t hat do not i nvol ve

doct r i nal i mpl i cat i ons. See American Union of Baptists, Inc.,

335 Md. at 575 ( “Al t hough t he l i ne separ at i ng those di sput es

whi ch ar e gr ounded i n r el i gi ous doct r i ne f r om t hose whi ch

concer n pur el y secul ar mat t er s i s of t en di f f i cul t t o di scer n, we

have i n many cases been abl e t o resol ve chur ch pr opert y di sput es

wi t h t he appl i cat i on of neut r al pr i nci pl es of l aw. ”) ; Babcock

Mem. Pres. Ch. v. Presbytery , 296 Md. 573 ( 1983) ( r esol vi ng

i nt er est s i n pr oper t y by det er mi ni ng whet her t he chur ch pol i t y

was congr egat i onal or hi er ar chi cal i n nat ur e; such an i nqui r y

r equi r ed appl i cat i on of neut r al pr i nci pl es of l aw) .

I ssues of st andi ng ar e anal yzed under t he r ubr i c of a

mot i on f or l ack of subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on. See Taubman

Realty Grp. Ltd. P’Ship v. Mineta, 320 F. 3d 475, 480- 81 ( 4t h Ci r .



20/42

20

2003) ( af f i r mi ng di st r i ct cour t ’ s di smi ssal of compl ai nt f or

l ack of st andi ng pur suant t o Fed. R. Ci v. P. 12( b) ( 1) ) ; Gonyo v.

Midland Funding, LLC , No. CCB- 11- 3117, 2012 WL 2564711, at *2

( D. Md. J une 29, 2012) ( eval uat i ng whet her a part y has st andi ng

pur suant t o Rul e 12( b) ( 1) ) . A chal l enge t o st andi ng may t ake

t wo f or ms: a f aci al chal l enge, asser t i ng t hat t he al l egat i ons

pl eaded i n t he compl ai nt ar e i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh st andi ng,

or a f actual chal l enge asser t i ng “‘ t hat t he j ur i sdi cti onal

al l egat i ons of t he compl ai nt [ ar e] not t r ue, ’ ” or t hat ot her

f act s, out si de t he f our cor ner s of t he compl ai nt pr ecl ude t he

exer ci se of subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi cti on. Kerns v. United

States, 585 F. 3d 187, 192 ( 4t h Ci r . 2009) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ; see

also Potomac Conference Corp. of Seventh-day Adventists v.

Takoma Academy Alumni Ass’n, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 3d 758, 765- 66

( D. Md. 2014) .

Pl ai nt i f f asser t s i n t he compl ai nt t hat she has st andi ng

because she has been a congregat i onal member of t he Chur ch f or

over si x ( 6) years and r emai ns a congregat i onal member . ( ECF

No. 1 ¶¶ 4- 5) . Def endant s di sput e t hat Pl ai nt i f f cur r ent l y i s a

member of t he Chur ch and submi t evi dence to t he cont r ar y. 6 When

6 Some of Def endant s’ f i l i ngs cont ai n per sonal i dent i f yi ngi nf or mat i on, i ncl udi ng soci al secur i t y number and bi r t hday.( See ECF Nos. 7- 9 & 7- 16, at 3) . Pur suant t o Fed. R. Ci v. P. 5. 2,per sonal i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on shoul d have been r edact ed. “I ti s t he r esponsi bi l i t y of counsel and t he par t i es t o r edactper sonal i dent i f i er s. The cl er k wi l l not scr een document s and



21/42

21

a def endant “chal l enges t he exi st ence of subj ect mat t er

j ur i sdi ct i on i n f act , t he pl ai nt i f f bear s t he bur den of provi ng

t he t r ut h of such f act s by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence. ”

Vuyyuru v. Jadhav , 555 F. 3d 337, 347 ( 4t h Ci r . 2009) . I f t he

def endant chal l enges t he f act ual pr edi cat e of subj ect mat t er

j ur i sdi ct i on, t hen “a di st r i ct cour t may hol d an evi dent i ar y

hear i ng t o det er mi ne whet her t he f act s support t he

j ur i sdi ct i onal al l egat i ons. ” United States v. North Carolina,

180 F. 3d 574, 580 (4t h Ci r . 1999) . However , when an at t ack on

t he f acts al l egi ng subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi cti on i s i nt er t wi ned

wi t h t he mer i t s of a di sput e, “i t may be appr opr i at e t o resol ve

t he ent i r e f act ual di sput e at a l at er pr oceedi ng on t he mer i t s. ”

In re Mut, Funds Inv. Litig., 430 F. Supp. 2d 434, 440 ( D. Md.

2005) . The Four t h Ci r cui t summar i zed i n Kerns, 585 F. 3d at 193:

As we expl ai ned i n Adams [ v. Bain, 697 F. 2d1213, 1219 ( 4t h Ci r . 1982) ] , vest i ng adi st r i ct cour t wi t h t he di scr et i on t odet er mi ne whet her i t possesses j ur i sdi ct i ongener al l y pr esent s no pr obl ems. [ ] But as J udge Spr ouse caut i oned i n Adams, “where t he j ur i sdi ct i onal f act s ar e i nt er t wi ned wi t ht he f act s cent r al t o t he mer i t s of t hedi sput e, ” a pr esumpt i on of t r ut hf ul nessshoul d at t ach t o t he pl ai nt i f f ’ sal l egat i ons. Id. In that situation, the

wi l l not r ej ect t hem on t he basi s t hat t hey cont ai n per sonali dent i f i er s. Any par t y may r equest t hat a publ i cl y f i l eddocument cont ai ni ng a f ul l per sonal i dent i f i er be wi t hdr awn andr ef i l ed wi t h appr opr i at e r edact i ons. ” See Pr i vacy Pol i cy –Ci vi l Cases ( 2004) . Accor di ngl y, ECF Nos. 7- 9 and 7- 16 wi l l bepl aced under seal and Def endant s wi l l have seven ( 7) days t of i l e r edacted ver si ons.



22/42

22

defendant has challenged not only the

court’s jurisdiction but also the existence

of the plaintiff’s cause of action. A trial

court should then afford the plaintiff the

procedural safeguards – such as discovery –

that would apply were the plaintiff facing a

direct attack on the merits.

. . .

I n shor t , when a def endant asser t s t hat t hecompl ai nt f ai l s t o al l ege suf f i ci ent f act st o suppor t subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on, t het r i al cour t must appl y a st andar d pat t er nedon Rul e 12( b) ( 6) and assume t he t r ut f ul nessof t he f act s al l eged. On t he ot her hand,when the def endant chal l enges t he ver aci t y

of t he f act s under pi nni ng subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on, t he t r i al cour t may go beyondt he compl ai nt , conduct evi dent i ar ypr oceedi ngs, and resol ve t he di sput ed j ur i sdi ct i onal f act s. And when thejurisdictional facts are inextricably

intertwined with those central to the

merits, the court should resolve the

relevant factual disputes only after

appropriate discovery, unless the

allegations are clearly immaterial or wholly

unsubstantial and frivolous.

( emphases added) .

Her e, Def endant s make a f actual chal l enge, argui ng t hat

Pl ai nt i f f ’ s compl ai nt i ncl udes j ur i sdi ct i onal al l egat i ons – that

she i s a member of t he Chur ch – t hat are not t r ue. See, e.g.,

Askew v. Trustees of General Assembly of Church of the Lord

Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith Inc., 684 F. 3d 413, 418 ( 3d

Ci r . 2012) ( “Mi sappr opr i at i on of chur ch asset s coul d have caused

Askew i nj ur y- i n- f act, as an i ndi vi dual or der i vat i vel y, onl y i f

he i s a member of t he Chur ch. ”) . Pl ai nt i f f asser t s i n t he



23/42

23

compl ai nt t hat she has been a member of the Church f or over si x

years. 7 ( ECF No. 1 ¶ 4) . Def endant s submi t an af f i davi t f r om

Deni se Ki l l en, t he Chai r man of t he Boar d of Tr ust ees of J er i cho

Bapt i st Chur ch Mi ni st r i es, I nc. , st at i ng t hat “[ a] ccor di ng t o

J er i cho Mar yl and’ s r ecor ds, Pl ai nt i f f Renee Fr ankl i n i s not a

member of J er i cho Mar yl and. ” ( ECF No. 7- 2 ¶ 6) . Ms. Ki l l en

f ur t her aver s t hat al l member s are expect ed r egul ar l y to t i t he,

whi ch i ncl udes gi vi ng one- t ent h of t hei r i ncome t o t he Chur ch;

accor di ng t o Ms. Ki l l en, “[ a] l t hough Pl ai nt i f f made spor adi c

donat i ons t o J er i cho Maryl and when Mr . Peebl es used t o per f orm

r el i gi ous ser vi ces f or J er i cho Mar yl and, Pl ai nt i f f appear s t o

have st opped at t endi ng ser vi ces and maki ng any monet ary

cont r i but i ons t o J er i cho Mar yl and i n 2011. ” ( Id.) . Ms. Ki l l en

st at es, however , t hat Pl ai nt i f f at t ended ser vi ces at t he Chur ch

on Febr uary 23, 2014 – t hr ee days af t er t he compl ai nt was f i l ed

– and pr esent ed a check f or $12. 50. 8 ( Id. ¶ 7) . Ms. Ki l l en

7 Def endant s ar gue t hat havi ng i ncor porat ed i n December2010, J er i cho Mar yl and has exi st ed onl y f or f our year s, t husPl ai nt i f f coul d not have been a member of J er i cho Mar yl and f orover si x year s. Pl ai nt i f f ’ s abi l i t y t o br i ng cl ai ms on behal fof t he Chur ch, however , does not appear t o hi nge on hermember shi p i n J er i cho Maryl and, t he non-profit corporation. SeeAskew v. Trustees of General Assembly of Church of the Lord

Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith Inc., 644 F. Supp. 2d 584,590- 91 ( E. D. Pa. 2009) ( expl ai ni ng di f f er ence bet ween cl ai msder i vat i ve of t he cor por at i on’ s r i ght s as opposed t o cl ai msder i vat i ve of t he Chur ch) .

8 Ms. Ki l l en st at es t hat t he check was not cashed ordeposi t ed.



24/42

24

wr ot e a l et t er t o Pl ai nt i f f , dat ed Mar ch 5, 2014, st at i ng, i n

r el evant par t :

Thank you ver y much f or your check i n t heamount of $12. 50 t hat J er i cho Ci t y of Pr ai ser ecei ved on Febr uar y 23, 2014.

Accordi ng t o our r ecords, you have notat t ended any ser vi ces at J er i cho i n a coupl eof year s. I f your gi f t was a one- t i medonat i on because you wer e j ust vi si t i ng wi t hus, we si ncer el y appr eci at e your gener osi t y.If, however, you are currently without a

church home, we invite you to become a

member of Jericho.

Our Sol i d Foundat i on cl ass, whi ch i sr equi r ed f or new and ret ur ni ng members,meet s on Fr i day eveni ngs f r om 7 p. m. t o 9p. m. To r egi st er , you can cont act medi r ect l y or speak wi t h any member of t hemi ni st r y t eam seat ed at t he pul pi t f ol l owi ngt he 9: 30 a. m. Sunday morni ng ser vi ce.

( ECF No. 7- 18, at 2) ( emphasi s added) . Al t hough Pl ai nt i f f has

not submi t t ed an af f i davi t , she st at es i n t he opposi t i on t o

Def endant s’ mot i on t hat she has nei t her st opped at t endi ng

servi ces and t i t hi ng nor r el i nqui shed her member shi p i n t he

Chur ch. ( ECF No. 10, at 11) . The cour t need not resol ve t he

f act ual di sput es bet ween t he par t i es, however , because

r esol ut i on of t he st andi ng i ssue – i.e., whet her Pl ai nt i f f i s a

member of t he Chur ch – i s i next r i cabl y i nt er t wi ned wi t h t he

mer i t s of t he der i vat i ve causes of acti on Pl ai nt i f f asser t s.

Speci f i cal l y, Pl ai nt i f f ’ s abi l i t y t o br i ng der i vat i ve cl ai ms

t ur ns on her membershi p i n t he Chur ch. Fur t hermore, t he



25/42

25

al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai nt suggest t hat Pl ai nt i f f chal l enges

whet her Def endant Trust ees are t he “t r ue” t r ust ees on t he Boar d

wi t h aut hor i t y t o make determi nat i ons as t o Chur ch membershi p.

Def endant s cont end, however , t hat t he cour t cannot r evi ew

t he det er mi nat i on t hat Pl ai nt i f f i s not a member of t he Chur ch.

They asser t t hat “[ t ] he unr evi ewabl e nat ur e of deci si ons

r egar di ng church discipline i s a st apl e i n Amer i can

j ur i spr udence and mandat ed by t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on. ”

( ECF No. 7- 1, at 15- 16) ( emphasi s added) . I n t hi s case,

however , t he r ecor d does not r ef l ect t hat Pl ai nt i f f ’ s member shi p

was t er mi nat ed, l et al one that any di sci pl i nar y act i on had been

t aken agai nst her . Mor eover , i t i s not cl ear f r om t he r ecor d

whether at some poi nt Pl ai nt i f f was r ecogni zed as a member of

t he Chur ch ( e.g., i n 2011) .

I n American Union of Baptists, 335 Md. at 577, t he cour t

stat ed: “[ i ] t i s wel l set t l ed i n t hi s St at e t hat t he

det er mi nat i on of a member shi p i n a chur ch i s a quest i on wel l

embedded i n t he ‘ t heol ogi cal t hi cket ’ and one that wi l l not be

ent er t ai ned by t he ci vi l cour t s. ” The cour t i n American Union

of Baptists ci t ed Evans v. Shiloh Baptist Church, 196 Md. 543,

551 ( 1950) , f or t hi s pr oposi t i on. I n Evans, t he cour t r easoned:

I n t he Jenkins case we hel d that , assumi ngt he expul si on of t he appel l ant s t o beunl awf ul , t hei r expul si on was a case ofdi sci pl i ne, [ ] , whi ch t he cour t s woul d notpass upon, where no property interest is



26/42

26

involved. As we held that no propertyinterest was involved in expulsion from

membership, manifestly no property interest

is involved in suspension or other similar

discipline short of expulsion. Long bef or et he Jenkins case i t had been hel d t hatmembership is an ecclesiastical matter , ast o whi ch t he cour t s wi l l not r evi ew t heact i on of t he eccl esi ast i cal aut hor i t i es.

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ( emphases added) . I n bot h

cases, t he court det ermi ned that member shi p i n a Chur ch was an

eccl esi ast i cal mat t er wher e t he r eason f or expul si on of a member

or r ef usal t o recogni ze an i ndi vi dual as a Chur ch member t ur ned

on r el i gi ous pr i nci pl es. For i nst ance, af t er st at i ng t hat

member shi p i n a Chur ch wi l l not be revi ewed by ci vi l cour t s, t he

cour t i n American Union of Baptists, 335 Md. at 577- 79,

observed:

The record in this case onl y emphasi zes t hi spoi nt ; Osbor ne’ s r ef usal t o r ecogni ze t he

congr egat i on of t he chur ch as “members” i sappar ent l y gr ounded i n t he f act t hat t hecongr egat i on al l egedl y al l ows an “opencommuni on. ” Cl ear l y, t he pr opr i et y vel non of an “open communi on” i n the Pr i mi t i veBapt i st f ai t h i s not wi t hi n t he pur vi ew oft he ci vi l cour t s. Yet , such a det er mi nat i oni s cruci al t o t he abi l i t y t o deci de whet hert he chur ch had val i d “member s. ” . . .Again, in order to decide this matter, we

would be required to resolve the property

disposition based on our interpretation ofreligious custom and polity. Thi s we cannotdo.

( emphases added) .



27/42

27

The r ecor d here i ndi cat es t hat t he quest i on of who i s or i s

not a Chur ch member depends i n par t on r el i gi ous pr act i ce. The

Ar t i cl es of I ncor por at i on of The J er i cho Bapt i st Chur ch

Mi ni st r i es, I nc. st at e t hat “[ m] ember shi p t o t he Chur ch shal l be

open [ t o] al l who accept J esus Chr i st as Lor d. ” ( ECF No. 7- 8,

at 6) . The Ar t i cl es of I ncor por at i on f ur t her pr ovi de t hat

“[ t ] he number , qual i f i cat i ons of , and ot her mat t er s r el at i ng t o,

i t s Member s shal l be as set f or t h i n t hese Ar t i cl es of

I ncorporat i on and t he By- Laws of t he Chur ch. ” ( Id.) . Ar t i cl e

10. 2 of t he By- Laws covers Non- Trust ee membershi p i n t he Chur ch:

a. Qual i f i cat i ons f or Member shi p. Non- Tr ust ee Membershi p i n t he Chur ch shal l beopen t o al l t hose per sons over ei ght een ( 18)years of age who gi ve evi dence of t hei rf ai t h i n t he Lor d J esus Chr i st , exhi bi t aconsi stent Chr i st i an l i f e, vol unt ar i l ysubscr i be t o t he Tenet s of Fai t h of t heChur ch, are bapt i zed, and are r ecogni zed as

member s af t er f ul f i l l i ng t he qual i f i cat i onsof member shi p and i n accor dance wi t h t heChur ch’ s est abl i shed member shi p pr ocess,whi ch pr ocess may be changed f r om t i me t ot i me.

b. Suspensi on, Revocat i on, and/ or Ter mi nat i onof Non- Trust ee Member shi p. The Board of Tr ust ees may suspend, r evoke and/ ort ermi nat e t he member shi p of any non- Trust eemember of t he Chur ch when a member has

engaged i n conduct det r i ment al t o t hei nt er est s of t he Chur ch, mor al t ur pi t ude,f or l ack of sympat hy of i t s obj ect i ves,r ef usal t o r ender r easonabl e assi st ance i ncar r yi ng out i t s pur poses ( i ncl udi ng but notl i mi t ed t o f i nanci al l y suppor t i ng t hemi ni st r y as det er mi ned by t he Boar d) , orot her wi se f ai l i ng t o meet t he qual i f i cat i ons



28/42

28

f or member shi p, at t he sol e di scr et i on oft he Boar d of Trust ees, whi ch shal l be deemedt o be r easonabl e. Such act i on( s) may bemade by t he Boar d of Trust ees wi t hout t heneed f or not i ce of war ni ng, by t heaf f i r mat i ve vot e of t wo- t hi r ds of t he f ul lBoar d of Tr ust ees, at any r egul ar or speci almeet i ng cal l ed f or t hat pur pose. Suchper son wi l l be r equi r ed t o l eave t hepr emi ses of t he Chur ch on a permanent basi s.

c. Non- Trust ee Membershi p Rost er . TheSecr et ar y of t he Boar d of Tr ust ees shal l ber esponsi bl e f or mai nt ai ni ng and updat i ng t her ost er of cur r ent non- Trust ee member s of t heChur ch.

( ECF No. 7- 19, at 16- 17) . 9

Def endant s ci t e Pl ai nt i f f ’ s spor adi c chur ch at t endance and

f ai l ur e t o t i t he r egul ar l y as r easons f or not r ecogni zi ng her

member shi p, f act ual asser t i ons t hat Pl ai nt i f f disputes.

Def endant s have not pr ovi ded evi dence r egardi ng who deci des

whet her someone i s or i s not a member of t he Chur ch, and how

t hat determi nat i on i s communi cat ed t o pur por t ed members.

Mor eover , unl i ke cases ci t ed by Def endant s, t he recor d so far

does not pr esent a si t uat i on wher e the Chur ch expl i ci t l y

t ermi nat ed membershi p and t he di sput e r equi r es t he cour t t o

del ve i nt o r el i gi ous doct r i ne, whi ch woul d f al l wi t h t he r eal m

of mat t er s i nsul at ed f r om ci vi l cour t r evi ew.

9 The By- Laws al so st at e that t her e shal l be t wo (2) cl assesof membershi p, one of whi ch consi st s of Trust ee members of t heChur ch and another consi st i ng of al l non- Trust ee member s of t heChur ch. ( ECF No. 7- 19, at 16) .



29/42

29

Addi t i onal l y, Pl ai nt i f f asser t s t hat Def endant s di savow her

member shi p i n order t o ci r cumvent t hi s l awsui t . She submi t s t wo

exhi bi t s evi denci ng t er mi nat i on l et t er s sent f r om t he Boar d of

Tr ust ees t o pur por t ed Church members, al l egedl y af t er such

i ndi vi dual s had ei t her sued t he Boar d of Tr ust ees or i ndi cat ed

an i nt ent i on t o sue. ( ECF No. 10, at 17- 18) . 10 Pl ai nt i f f avers

t hat she “knew t hat once she f i l ed sui t agai nst t he Boar d[ , ] her

membershi p woul d be chal l enged, because sai d t act i c of

denounci ng member shi p has been empl oyed bef or e by t he Board.

The Boar d r evokes membershi p t hrough cor r espondence t o t he

excommuni cated member by l et t er , and [ ] Pl ai nt i f f never r ecei ved

any excommuni cat i on l et t er . ” ( Id. at 11; see also id. at 17-

18) . Pl ai nt i f f st at es t hat she t i t hed i n cash pr i or t o Febr uar y

2014 “knowi ng t hat her member shi p woul d be chal l enged [ and] she

[ ] woul d need pr oof [ of ] her member shi p. ” ( Id. at 10) .

Pl ai nt i f f i n Askew si mi l ar l y al l eged t hat t he Chur ch t er mi nat ed

10 I n t hei r paper s, Def endant s r ef er ence anot her case f r omt he Ci r cui t Cour t f or Pr i nce Geor ge’ s Count y ar i si ng out of t hesame di sput e: Chavez, et al. v. Jericho Baptist ChurchMinistries, Inc., et al., Case No. CAL12- 13537. Pl ai nt i f f s i nt hat case sought i nj unct i ve r el i ef , al l egi ng t hat t he Boar d of Tr ust ees f ai l ed t o hol d mandat or y el ect i ons f or t r ust ees. ( See ECF No. 7- 15) . The cour t addr essed t he i ssue of whet herpl ai nt i f f s i n t hat case wer e member s of J er i cho Bapt i st Chur chMi ni st r i es at t he t i me of t he el ect i on of t he Boar d of Tr ust ees.( Id. at 3) . J udge J ackson on t he Ci r cui t Cour t i ssued amemor andum opi ni on on J anuar y 28, 2014, st at i ng that “[ b] y t hei rown submi ssi on, Pl ai nt i f f s do not di sput e that t hey wer e not member s of t he Mar yl and chur ch t hat was f or med on Oct ober 30,2010. ” ( Id. at 6) . I n t hat case, di scover y was conduct ed anddeposi t i ons had been t aken. ( See ECF Nos. 7- 15 & 7- 16) .



30/42

30

hi s membershi p as a post hoc deci si on made f or t he i mpermi ss i bl e

pur pose of di vest i ng t he di st r i ct cour t of j ur i sdi cti on. The

Thi r d Ci r cui t r emar ked:

A doct r i nal l y gr ounded deci si on made dur i ngl i t i gat i on t o i nsul at e quest i onabl e chur chact i ons f r om ci vi l cour t r evi ew may i ndeedr ai se an i nf er ence of f r aud or bad f ai t h. .. . Under those circumstances, the integrityof the judicial system may outweigh First

Amendment concerns such that a civil court

may inquire into the decision. But we f i ndno basi s f or t he i nf er ence her e. Si nce1992, Bi shop Shel t on has r epeatedl y decl aredal l per sons l oyal t o Roddy Shel t on

nonmember s of t he Chur ch. Askew admi t t edl yassoci at ed wi t h t he mi nor i t y f act i on l ed byRoddy Shel t on. Hi s member shi p i n t hat cl assof i ndi vi dual s under cut s any i nf er ence t hatBi shop Shel t on f i rst decl ared hi m anonmember i n 2009 i n or der t o t hwar t r evi ewby the Di st r i ct Cour t .

Askew , 684 F. 3d at 420- 21 ( emphasi s added) . Unl i ke i n Askew ,

Pl ai nt i f f asser t s t hat Def endant s di savow her member shi p f or

pur poses of avoi di ng bei ng sued and t he evi dence of f er ed by

Def endant s does not concl usi vel y est abl i sh t hat Pl ai nt i f f i s not

a member of t he Chur ch. I ndeed, Def endant s i nt i mat e t hat at

some poi nt i n 2011, Pl ai nt i f f may have been a member of t he

Chur ch.

Def endant s al so ar gue t hat even i f Pl ai nt i f f wer e a Non-

Tr ust ee member of J er i cho Mar yl and, she woul d not have st andi ng

t o br i ng t hi s l awsui t because she has no pr oper t y ri ght s i n

J er i cho Mar yl and. ( ECF No. 7- 1, at 15- 16) . Def endant s



31/42

31

r ef er ence Ar t i cl e 10. 1 of t he By- Laws, whi ch st at es t hat voting

rights f or any and “al l mat t er s r egar di ng or af f ect i ng t he

gover nance or oper at i on of t he Chur ch . . . whi ch shal l i ncl ude

but not be l i mi t ed t o t he r ecei pt , pur chase, sal e or t r ansf er of

r eal or per sonal pr oper t y” ar e gr ant ed excl usi vel y t o Tr ust ees

of t he Chur ch. ( ECF No. 7- 19, at 16) . The By- Laws f ur t her

st ate t hat “[ n] on- t r ust ee member s of t he Chur ch shal l not have

nor be ent i t l ed t o have voting rights r egardi ng t he governance

or oper at i on of t he Chur ch. ” ( Id.) ( emphasi s added) . Thi s

pr ovi si on r el at es t o vot i ng r i ght s, however , and does not

necessar i l y i nsul at e Def endant Tr ust ees f r om t hi s l awsui t

i nvol vi ng al l egat i ons of mi suse of Chur ch f unds.

Based on t he f or egoi ng, t he r ecor d does not concl usi vel y

est abl i sh t hat Pl ai nt i f f i s not a member of t he Chur ch, or t hat

r esol ut i on of t he mat t er woul d ent ai l del vi ng i nt o

eccl esi ast i cal mat t er s. Mor eover , t he i ssues may wel l be so

i nt er t wi ned wi t h t he mer i t s so as t o be i ncapabl e of r esol ut i on

separ at el y, consi der i ng t hat Pl ai nt i f f ’ s abi l i t y to br i ng cl ai ms

der i vat i vel y on behal f of t he Chur ch t ur ns on her st andi ng as a

Chur ch member . Accor di ngl y, Def endant s’ chal l enge t o

Pl ai nt i f f ’ s standi ng wi l l be deni ed.



32/42

32

D. Remaining Arguments

1. Demand Futility

Al l but one of Pl ai nt i f f ’ s cl ai ms ar e der i vat i ve, t hus she

must compl y wi t h Fed. R. Ci v. P. 23. 1( b) . Among other

r equi r ement s, Rul e 23. 1( b) mandates t hat t he compl ai nt i n a

der i vat i ve act i on be ver i f i ed and “st at e wi t h par t i cul ar i t y”:

( A) any ef f or t by t he pl ai nt i f f t o obt ai nt he desi r ed acti on f r om t he di r ectors orcompar abl e aut hor i t y and, i f necessary, f r omt he sharehol der s or member s; and

( B) t he r easons f or not obt ai ni ng t he act i onor not maki ng t he ef f or t .

Fed. R. Ci v. P. 23( b) ( 3) . The pl eadi ng st andar d “f or excusi ng

demand i s def i ned i n a f eder al der i vat i ve act i on by t he l aw of

t he St at e of i ncor por at i on, ” Weinberg v. Gold , 838 F. Supp. 2d

355, 357 ( D. Md. 2012) , whi ch, i n t hi s case, i s Mar yl and. Under

Mar yl and l aw, a member of a cor por at i on can f i l e a der i vat i ve

act i on i f “member s wi t h aut hor i t y t o br i ng t he act i on have

r ef used t o br i ng t he act i on or i f an ef f or t t o cause t hose

member s t o br i ng t he act i on i s not l i kel y t o succeed. ” Md. Code

Ann. , Corp’ s & Assoc. § 4A- 801( b) . Maryl and cour t s have

i nt er pr et ed t he l at t er hal f of t hi s pr ovi si on as creat i ng a

“f ut i l i t y” except i on to t he demand requi r ement . Wasserman v.

Kay , 197 Md. App. 586, 627- 28 ( 2011) ( “[ I ] t i s cl ear t hat t he

l egi sl at ur e i nt ended t he phr ase ‘ not l i kel y t o succeed’ t o

equat e wi t h ‘ f ut i l i t y. ’ ”) . To sustai n a der i vat i ve act i on, a



33/42

33

pl ai nt i f f t her ef or e must est abl i sh ei t her t hat she made a demand

of member s of aut hor i t y to f i l e sui t and f ai l ed t o gar ner

maj or i t y appr oval , or t hat she di d not make such a demand

because doi ng so woul d have been f ut i l e.

I n Werbowsky v. Collomb, 362 Md. 581 ( 2001) , t he Cour t of

Appeal s of Mar yl and r evi ewed at l engt h t he evol ut i on of t he

st andard f or demand f ut i l i t y both i n Maryl and and beyond. 11 The

cour t not ed t hat i t was unwi l l i ng t o excuse demand

si mpl y because a maj or i t y of t he di r ect or s

appr oved or part i ci pated i n some way i n thechal l enged t r ansact i on or deci si on, or ont he basi s of gener al i zed or specul at i veal l egat i ons t hat t hey ar e conf l i ct ed or ar econt r ol l ed by ot her conf l i ct ed per sons, orbecause t hey ar e pai d wel l f or t hei rservi ces as di r ect or s, wer e chosen asdi r ect or s at t he behest of cont r ol l i ngst ockhol der s, or woul d be host i l e t o t heact i on.

Id. at 618. “Not i ng t hat , i n some cases, t he demand may be t he

di r ect or s’ ‘ f i r st knowl edge t hat a deci si on or t r ansact i on t hey

made or appr oved i s bei ng quest i oned, ’ t he [Werbowsky ] court

i ndi cat ed di r ect or s mi ght r espond by seeki ng t he advi ce of a

speci al l i t i gat i on commi t t ee of i ndependent di r ect or s or by

accedi ng t o t he demand rat her t han r i ski ng embarr assi ng

11 The cour t i n Werbowsky consi der ed t he var i ous st andar dsf or demand f ut i l i t y, but decl i ned t o adopt ei t her t he Del awar eappr oach or t he model s pr oposed by t he Amer i can Bar Associ at i onand the Amer i can Law I nst i t ut e.



34/42

34

l i t i gat i on. ” Weinberg , 838 F. Supp. 2d at 359 ( quoting Werbowsky ,

362 Md. at 619) . The Werbowsky cour t concl uded:

We adher e, f or t he t i me bei ng, t o thef ut i l i t y except i on, but , consi st ent wi t hwhat appear s t o be t he pr evai l i ng phi l osophyt hr oughout t he count r y, regard it as a verylimited exception, to be applied only when

the allegations or evidence clearly

demonstrate, in a very particular manner ,ei t her t hat ( 1) a demand, or a del ay i nawai t i ng a r esponse t o a demand, woul d causei r r epar abl e har m t o t he cor por at i on, or ( 2)a majority of the directors are so

personally and directly conflicted or

committed to the decision in dispute that

they cannot reasonably be expected to

respond to a demand in good faith and within

the ambit of the business judgment rule.

Werbowsky, 362 Md. at 620 ( emphases added) .

Pl ai nt i f f has of f er ed t he f ol l owi ng r easons f or excusi ng

demand on t he Boar d bef or e i ni t i at i ng t hi s l awsui t :

1.

Anyone who quest i ons t he act i vi t i es of t he

Boar d has been si l enced i n one f or m oranot her , whi ch i s evi denced by the Boar d’ sci vi l act i on [ ] agai nst Bi shop J oelPeebl es, Sr . t o i l l egal l y t er mi nat e hi sempl oyment and remove hi m f r om t he Boar dwi t h t he Nomi nal Def endant ;

2.

Member s of t he Nomi nal Def endant ’ scongr egat i on r equest ed access t o t heNomi nal Def endant ’ s r ecords pur suant t oCorporat i ons and Associ at i ons Code § 5- 307

wi t h no cooper at i on f r om t he Def endant swhi ch l ef t f i ve ( 5) member s of t he Nomi nalDef endant ’ s congr egat i on wi t h no choi cebut t o f i l e sui t [ ] t o enf or ce t hei rr i ght s ;

3.

Member s of t he Nomi nal Def endant ’ scongr egat i on have f i l ed sui t [ ] t o enf or ce



35/42

35

t hei r r i ght s under Cor pi r at i ons andAssoci at i ons Code § 5- 302 [ ] because t heBoar d r ef used and cont i nues t o r ef use tof ol l ow t he mandat es of § 5- 302 and al l owt he member s of t he Nomi nal Def endant t ovot e t o el ect t he t r ust ees;

4.

Member s of t he Nomi nal Def endant t hat havequest i oned t he act i ons of t he Boar d havebeen r emoved f r om t he Nomi nal Def endant ’ spr oper t y under pol i ce escor t ;

5. Members of t he Nomi nal Def endant haveexpr essed and r equest ed i n wr i t i ng t hei robj ect i on t o t hei r chur ch t i t hes andof f er i ngs bei ng used t o sue Bi shop J oelPebbl es, Sr . , and [ ] Def endant s cont i nue

t o use chur ch t i t hes and of f er i ngs t o sueBi shop J oel Pebbl es, Sr . , and deny membersof t he Nomi nal Def endant t hei r st at ut or yr i ght s ;

6.

I n order t o br i ng t hi s sui t [ ] , [ ]Def endant s woul d be f orced t o suet hemsel ves and per sons [ wi t h] whom t heyhave ext ensi ve busi ness and personalent angl ment s, whi ch they wi l l not do, andmakes demand f ut i l e and usel ess;

7.

The act s compl ai ned of herei n [ ]const i t ut e vi ol at i ons of Mar yl and St at el aw and t he f i duci ary dut i es owed by t heNomi nal Def endant ’ s t r ust ees and of f i cer sand t hose act i ons are i ncapabl e ofr at i f i cat i on;

8. Each of t he t r ust ees and of f i cer saut hor i zed t he i l l egal act i ons of t heBoar d compl ai ned of her ei n[ ] , and havi ng

acqui esced t o t he mi sconduct and i l l egalact i ons cannot f ul l y and f ai r l y pr osecut esuch sui t , even i f such a sui t wasi ni t i at ed;

9.

[ ] Def endant s cannot be r el i ed upon t or each a t r ul y i ndependent deci si on as t owhet her t o commence an act i on agai nst



36/42

36

t hemsel ves or ot her t r ust ees and/ orof f i cer s f or t he mi sconduct al l egedher ei n[ ] , i n t hat inter alia, [ t hey ar e]cont r ol l ed by Def endant s[ ] Ki l l en and J ackon, who have personal l y benef i t ed f r omt he mi sconduct . Def endant s[ ] Ki l l en and J ackson’ s[ ] domi ni on over t he Boar d hasi mpai r ed i t s abi l i t y t o exer ci se pr operbusi ness j udgment and r endered i ti ncapabl e of r eachi ng an i ndependentdeci si on as t o whet her t o accept [ ]Pl ai nt i f f ’ s demand;

10. Any sui t t o remedy t he wr ongs al l eged[ ] her ei n [ ] by the Boar d woul d l i kel yexpose t he Def endant s t o ci vi l l i abi l i t yand cri mi nal l i abi l i t y, and t hus t hey ar e

hopel essl y conf l i ct ed i n maki ng ani ndependent deci si on t o f i l e sui t agai nstt hemsel ves or any ot her t r ust ee and/ orof f i cer of t he Nomi nal Def endant ;

11.

Def endant s[ ] Ki l l en, Wi l l i ams, and J ackson, ar e each i nt er est ed because t heyf ace substant i al ci vi l l i abi l i t y andcri mi nal cul pabi l i t y f or t hei r mi sconducti n handl i ng t he Nomi nal Def endant ’ sf i nances. I n t hei r r ol es as of f i cer s of

t he Nomi nal Def endant t hey werer esponsi bl e f or mai nt ai ni ng the accur acyand i nt egr i t y of t he Nomi nal Def endant ’ sf i nanci al report .

( ECF No. 1 ¶ 31) .

Pl ai nt i f f ’ s j ust i f i cat i ons f or f ai l i ng t o make a demand ar e

i nsuf f i ci ent under t he f ut i l i t y except i on r ecogni zed by

Maryl and l aw. For i nst ance, Reasons 3 and 7 – regardi ng

vi ol at i ons of st at e l aw, Md. Code 5- 302, and br each of

f i duci ar y dut y - go t o t he mer i t s of t he case, and Werbowsky

di sal l ows consi der at i on of t he mer i t s of t he case i n anal yzi ng



37/42

37

demand f ut i l i t y. Werbowsky , 362 Md. at 620 ( not i ng t hat

st andar d f or demand f ut i l i t y under Mar yl and l aw “f ocuses t he

cour t ’ s at t ent i on on t he r eal , l i mi t ed i ssue – t he f ut i l i t y of a

pr e- sui t demand – and avoi d i nj ect i ng i nt o a pr el i mi nar y

pr oceedi ng i ssues t hat go more t o t he mer i t s of t he compl ai nt –

whet her t her e was, i n f act , sel f - deal i ng, cor por at e wast e, or a

l ack of busi ness j udgment wi t h r espect t o t he deci si on or

t r ansact i on under at t ack. ”; Weinberg , 838 F. Supp. 2d at 361

( f i ndi ng i nsuf f i ci ent t o show demand f ut i l i t y expl anat i on

r el at ed t o mer i t s of t he l awsui t ) . Reasons 6, 10, and 11

si mi l ar l y ar e i nsuf f i ci ent t o j ust i f y appl i cat i on of t he

f ut i l i t y except i on. As expl ai ned i n Weinberg , 838 F. Supp. 2d at

360, “mer el y because di r ect or s ar e named i n the i nst ant sui t

does not mean t hat prior to the suit, a demand woul d have been

f ut i l e. ” ( emphasi s added) ; Seidl v. American Century

Companies, Inc., 713 F. Supp. 2d 249, 260 ( “[ P] l ai nt i f f ’ s

concl usor y al l egat i on t hat ACMF’ s di r ect or s wi l l be exposed t o

ci vi l and cr i mi nal l i abi l i t y i s i nadequat e t o excuse demand

under Mar yl and l aw. Fur t her mor e, pl ai nt i f f cannot ci r cumvent

t he demand requi r ement by al l egi ng that t he di r ect ors engaged i n

i nher ent l y cri mi nal act i vi t y. ”) . J udge Br edar expl ai ned i n

Weinberg , 838 F. Supp. 2d at 360- 61, t hat i mpor t ant consi der at i ons

under l yi ng t he demand r equi r ement i n der i vat i ve l awsui t “woul d

be nul l i f i ed i n ever y shar ehol der ’ s der i vat i ve sui t t hat named



38/42

38

di r ect or s as def endant s i f si mpl y nami ng t hem as par t i es

pr ovi ded excuse f or pr e- sui t demand. ” See also In re Regions

Mortgan Keegan Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig., 694 F. Supp. 2d

879, 887- 88 ( W. D. Tenn. 2010) ( possi bi l i t y di r ect or s may have t o

sue t hemsel ves di d not wai ve demand under Maryl and l aw) .

Next , r easons 8 and 9 t hat t he Boar d i s cont r ol l ed by

Def endant s Ki l l en and J ackson, who have a per sonal f i nanci al

st ake, and t hat each Tr ust ee pur por t edl y was i nvol ved i n t he

chal l enged conduct , ar e specul at i ve and concl usory. See

Werbowsky , 362 Md. at 618 ( “[ We] ar e not wi l l i ng to excuse t he

f ai l ur e t o make demand si mpl y because a maj or i t y of t he

di r ect ors appr oved or par t i ci pat ed i n some way i n t he chal l enged

t r ansact i on or deci si on, or on t he basi s of gener al i zed or

specul at i ve al l egat i ons t hat t hey ar e conf l i ct ed or ar e

cont r ol l ed by ot her conf l i ct ed per sons, or because they ar e pai d

wel l f or t hei r ser vi ces as di r ector s, . . . or woul d be host i l e

t o t he act i on. ”) . Mor eover , Ki l l en and J ackson ar e onl y t wo out

of t he si x members of t he Boar d, and t he Werbowsky st andard

appl i es wher e a majority of t he di r ect or s ar e so per sonal l y and

di rect l y conf l i ct ed. See Weinberg , 838 F. Supp. 2d at 360 ( “But

Gol d and Kr ei t zer are onl y t wo out of seven members of t he

boar d, whi ch means t hat at l east t wo mor e member s of t he boar d

woul d have to be per sonal l y di squal i f i ed bef or e t he Werbowsky

standard i s sat i s f i ed. ”) .



39/42

39

The r emai ni ng al l egat i ons ar e si mi l ar l y i nsuf f i ci ent .

Pl ai nt i f f st at es t hat member s of t he Chur ch have r equest ed t hat

t hei r donat i ons not be used i n l i t i gat i on aganst J oel Peebl es,

and t hose request s have not been honored, but t hat has not hi ng

t o do wi t h whet her t he Boar d woul d be host i l e t o a demand t o

sue. Mor eover , al t hough Pl ai nt i f f assert s t hat “member s” of t he

Nomi nal Def endant who have chal l enged t he act i ons of t he Boar d

have been r emoved under pol i ce escor t , she r ecount s onl y a

si ngl e i nci dent i nvol vi ng t he al l eged r emoval of J oel Peebl es

under pol i ce escort , an al l egat i on i n t he f our t h amended

count er cl ai ms f i l ed by Mr . Peebl es i n t he Ci r cui t Cour t f or

Pr i nce George’ s Count y. Fur t her more, she st at es t hat “anyone

who quest i ons t he act i vi t i es of t he Board has been si l enced i n

one f or m or anot her , ” but t hi s asser t i on f al l s wi t hi n t he

cat egor y of “gener al i zed or specul at i ve al l egat i ons” t hat t he

Boar d woul d be host i l e t o t he act i on, consi der ed by Werbowsky as

i nadequat e t o excuse demand.

Based on t he f or egoi ng, Pl ai nt i f f has not of f er ed

suf f i ci ent al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai nt t o excuse demand under

t he f ut i l i t y except i on r ecogni zed by Mar yl and l aw. Accor di ngl y,

t he der i vat i ve cl ai ms wi l l be di smi ssed.



40/42

40

2. Section 5-302

Pl ai nt i f f br i ngs a di r ect cl ai m f or vi ol at i on of Md. Code,

Corps. & Assoc. § 5- 302. Sect i on 5- 302 gover ns the cont ent s of

pl ans of r el i gi ous cor por at i on, and st at es, i n r el evant par t :

( a)

The adul t members of a chur ch may f or ma r el i gi ous cor por at i on as pr ovi ded i nt hi s par t .

( b) The members shal l :

( 1)

El ect at l east f our i ni di vi dual s t o actas t r ust ees i n the name of and onbehal f of t he chur ch; and

( 2) Pr epar e a pl an of t he chur ch.

Pl ai nt i f f asser t s i n t he compl ai nt t hat she has a vest ed r i ght

pur suant t o Sect i on 5- 302 t o choose – by way of vot e – t he

Tr ust ees who ser ve on t he Boar d of J er i cho Mar yl and. ( ECF No. 1

¶ 78) . I n suppor t of her cl ai m f or vi ol at i on of Sect i on 5- 302,

Pl ai nt i f f st at es t hat al t hough Def endant s bel i eve t hat t he

Oct ober 30, 2010 el ect i on “val i dat es t hei r exi st ence as t r ust ees

of t he Nomi nal Def endant [ , ] ” “ [ n] o el ect i on was hel d on Oct ober

30, 2010[ ] t o create a new corporat i on [ ] because t he

cor por at i on was al r eady [ i n] exi st ence at t he t i me. ” ( Id. ¶¶

79- 80) .

Def endant s quest i on whet her Sect i on 5- 302 cr eates a pr i vat e

cause of act i on and asser t t hat t he cl ai m may be t i me- bar r ed.

I t i s not necessar y t o resol ve t hese ar gument s because, as

Def endant s ar gue, Pl ai nt i f f i gnor es t he f act t hat Sect i on 5- 302



41/42

41

addr esses t he f or mat i on of and i ni t i al pl an f or a cor por at i on.

Before a cor por at i on i s f or med, t he member s shal l “[ e] l ect at

l east f our i ndi vi dual s t o act as t r ust ees i n t he name of and on

behal f of t he chur ch. ” Md. Code, Cor ps. & Assoc. § 5- 302( b) ( 1) .

Sect i on 5- 304 pr ovi des, i n r el evant par t :

( a) The t r ustees shal l f i l e ar t i cl es ofi ncor por at i on f or r ecor d wi t h t heDepar t ment .

. . .

( c) When the Depart ment accept s t he ar t i cl es

of i ncor por at i on f or r ecor d, t he t r ust eesbecome a body cor por at e under t he namestat ed i n t he ar t i cl es.

Md. Code, Cor ps. & Assoc. § 2- 102 pr ovi des, i n r el evant par t :

( b) ( 1) When t he Depart ment accept s ar t i cl esof i ncor por at i on f or r ecor d, t he pr oposedcor por at i on becomes a body cor por at e undert he name and subj ect t o t he pur poses,condi t i ons, and pr ovi si ons st at ed i n t he

ar t i cl es.

( 2) Except i n a pr oceedi ng by the St at e f orf or f ei t ur e of a cor por at i on’ s char t er ,acceptance of the articles for record by the

Department is conclusive evidence of the

formation of the corporation.

( emphasi s added) .

Her e, t he Ar t i cl es of I ncor por at i on f or J er i cho Mar yl and

wer e accepted on December 15, 2010, whi ch pr ovi des concl usi ve

evi dence of t he f or mat i on of t he cor por at i on. Thi s poi nt

under mi nes any ar gument by Pl ai nt i f f t hat no el ect i on appoi nt i ng

Tr ust ees t o t he Boar d was hel d on Oct ober 30, 2010 because t he



42/42

Di st r i ct of Col umbi a char t er exi st ed at t he t i me. The Di st r i ct

of Col umbi a char t er mer ged i nt o J er i cho Mar yl and. ( See ECF No.

7- 3) . As Def endant s argue, “[ b] ecause t he Depar t ment undeni abl y

accept ed t he Ar t i cl es of I ncor por at i on f or J er i cho Mar yl and on

December 15, 2010, Pl ai nt i f f ’ s cl ai m t hat t he cor por at i on

al r eady exi st ed on Oct ober 30, 2010, i nexpl i cabl y r esul t i ng i n

some t ype of vi ol at i on of Sect i on 5- 302, f ai l s. ” ( ECF No. 7- 1,

at 19) .

Based on t he f oregoi ng, summary j udgment wi l l be gr ant ed t o

Def endant s on t he cl ai m al l egi ng a vi ol at i on of Sect i on 5- 302.

III. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, Def endant s’ mot i on wi l l be

gr ant ed. A separ at e or der wi l l f ol l ow.

/ s /DEBORAH K. CHASANOWUni t ed St at es Di st r i ct J udge


franklin v jackson

Documents