Attorney Kim D Parker's Legal Cases

Government

Hill vs. State of Maryland Medical Examiners Office

May 01, 2023

OUTCOME: Settled

Attorney Kim Parker successfully represented the Plaintiffs, who received a settlement of $150,000 from the Maryland Department of Health, Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) in a case of wron ... gful handling of a deceased family member's body. The facts of the case reveal a series of distressing events following the death of the Plaintiffs' mother, who was found deceased in a rental vehicle on April 21, 2022. After her death, her body was taken to the OCME for examination. On May 10, 2022, "Stephanie," an employee of the OCME, contacted Plaintiff to inquire about arrangements for the body, confirming that it was still available and not yet moved for anatomical study. Plaintiff communicated her preference for the body to be transferred to a chosen funeral home. However, when the Plaintiffs arrived at the OCME to collect their mother’s body, they were informed that it had already been disposed of without prior notification to them, despite their explicit instructions and communications with the OCME staff. This unexpected and unauthorized disposition caused the Plaintiffs significant mental, emotional, and psychological distress. The Plaintiffs filed their claim under several counts, including negligence and gross negligence, arguing that the OCME failed to adhere to its duties and violated statutory obligations to retain the body following notice of family preference. They contended that the actions and inactions of OCME staff particularly Stephanie amounted to a breach of duty, leading to irreparable harm and pain for the family as they were not permitted to honor their mother with a proper funeral ceremony. Parker argued that the OCME not only had a special duty to the Plaintiffs as next of kin but also failed to conduct a reasonable search for the appropriate person to take control of the body, as mandated by Maryland law. This claim, along with the emotional toll stemming from the mishandling of the body, ultimately resulted in a favorable settlement of $150,000 for the Plaintiffs, recognizing their significant loss and suffering.

Landlord or tenant

Davis v. Peter M. Ferraro

Apr 17, 2023

OUTCOME: Reversal

Attorney Kim Parker successfully represented Melange Davis in an appeal against a judgment from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County in a civil action initiated by landlord Peter M. Ferraro for unpai ... d rent and property damages. The trial court initially entered a default judgment against Davis, claiming she failed to respond to Ferraro's complaint. However, Davis had submitted a document titled "Late Defense" within the prescribed time, which included a certificate of service and served as her answer to the complaint. The appellate court found that this filing was timely and constituted a sufficient response under Maryland law. It ruled that the circuit court erred in entering a default order against Davis, denying her motion to vacate, and subsequently granting Ferraro a default judgment. The appellate court emphasized the importance of focusing on the substance of legal filings rather than their labels. It reversed the circuit court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, ordering Ferraro to pay the costs associated with the appeal.

Personal injury

SUTTON-WITHERSPOON v. SAFE MANAGEMENT, INC

Feb 26, 2019

OUTCOME: Reversal (Published Opinion)

The firm, in collaboration with co-counsel, successfully secured a reversal of the Baltimore Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment to the Baltimore Ravens, as detailed in a published opinion. Ms. P ... arker and Mr. Iamele represented clients who were injured when they were trampled during the parade celebrating the Baltimore Ravens' Super Bowl victory in 2013. The Court of Special Appeals reaffirmed that under Maryland law, a property owner who invites others onto their premises has a duty to ensure the area is reasonably safe. Furthermore, storekeepers are obligated to protect against potential hazards. The court noted that the defendants "solicited" an exceptionally large crowd and, despite having the means to manage such gatherings, allowed the crowd to "become too dense for proper control or safe exit." Additionally, the court highlighted that the trial court failed to adequately consider the defendants' argument that the injuries sustained were a foreseeable result of their decision to host an “unticketed” and prominently advertised Super Bowl celebration, which ultimately attracted a sizable audience while allegedly lacking sufficient crowd control measure.

Employment and labor

Williams v. STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION OF MARYLAND

Sep 18, 2018

OUTCOME: Reversal

Attorney Kim Parker successfully represented Appellant Jerry Williams in a legal dispute involving his former employer, the State Employees Credit Union of Maryland (SECU), and several other defendants ... . Williams, who was employed by SECU from June 2004 until February 2013, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County three years after leaving, alleging multiple claims including constructive discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary duty. The defendants responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing some claims were time-barred and that the complaint failed to state a valid claim. Williams subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) that introduced new claims and legal theories, which the defendants sought to strike as exceeding the permissible scope under Maryland rules. The Circuit Court granted the defendants' motion to strike the SAC without a hearing, stating that the SAC was improperly amended. The case then proceeded to a hearing on the defendants' initial motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (FAC), during which Williams voluntarily discontinued several claims. The second judge ultimately dismissed the FAC in its entirety and with prejudice. Williams filed an omnibus motion seeking to alter the judgment, arguing against the strike of the SAC and the dismissal of his claims. However, the court denied this motion. Williams appealed on three grounds: the strike of the SAC, the dismissal of the FAC, and the denial of his omnibus motion. The appellate court reviewed the case, focusing particularly on procedural matters and the handling of the claims related to the appropriate statute of limitations and the sufficiency of the allegations presented. In summary, this case involved complex issues around constructive discharge allegations and procedural rules regarding amendments to complaints, ultimately leading to a dismissal that was appealed on multiple grounds.

Slip and fall accident

Smith v. RITE AID OF MARYLAND, INC

May 19, 2016

OUTCOME: Reversal

Attorney Kim Parker successfully represented Appellant Blanche Smith in her appeal against Rite Aid Corporation regarding a negligence claim resulting from a fall in one of their stores. On October 24, ... 2012, Smith tripped over a tote box that was placed near the cashier counter, leading to injuries and a subsequent lawsuit filed on February 3, 2014. Over the course of the proceedings, Smith filed multiple amended complaints, but Rite Aid ultimately moved for summary judgment, arguing that Smith failed to demonstrate that they had a duty to warn her of an "open and obvious" hazard. During the hearing for the motion for summary judgment, the judge acknowledged that she had not reviewed Smith's opposition to the motion prior to making a ruling. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Rite Aid, asserting that Smith, being a frequent customer at the store, should have been aware of the tote box and that it constituted an open and obvious danger. On appeal, the court reversed the circuit court's decision, asserting that the question of whether the tote box was an open and obvious condition was a factual matter better suited for a jury. The court outlined that while store owners owe a duty of care to their customers, that duty may not extend to open and obvious dangers; however, the specifics of the case warranted further examination of the circumstances surrounding Smith's fall. Furthermore, evidence from Rite Aid employees acknowledged that the placement of the tote box contradicted store safety policies. The appellate court determined it could not conclusively state that Smith's actions contributed to her injury or that she assumed the risk of tripping over the box, emphasizing that such determinations were for a jury to resolve. As a result, the judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings, allowing Smith the opportunity to present her claims in front of a jury.

Foreclosure

Nickens vs. Mt Vernon Realty

Sep 10, 2013

OUTCOME: Reversal (Published Opinion) Revision in Statewide Law

Attorney Kim Parker successfully represented Appellant Nickens in a case concerning the enforcement of a foreclosure purchaser's right to repossess a property via self-help methods. The case originated ... when the respondents, including Mount Vernon Realty Group and associated parties, forcibly entered Nickens's residence following a foreclosure on the property owned by his parents. The respondents claimed the legal right to repossess the property without judicial intervention, while Nickens argued that their actions constituted a forcible entry and wrongful eviction. Initially, the Circuit Court dismissed Nickens's claims of forcible entry and conversion. Upon appeal, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the forcible entry claim but upheld Nickens's argument that the respondents may have improperly disposed of his personal belongings without due process. The appellate court agreed that while the respondents had a right to repossess the property through self-help, the manner in which they disposed of Nickens's belongings warranted further examination. The court ultimately ruled that Nickens did not abandon his personal property within the context of the law, and thus, the claim of conversion deserved further proceedings to determine the reasonableness of the respondents' actions regarding his possessions. Consequently, the judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, with the case remanded for further analysis of the conversion claim.

Kim D Parker's Legal Cases (6)

Hill vs. State of Maryland Medical Examiners Office

Davis v. Peter M. Ferraro

SUTTON-WITHERSPOON v. SAFE MANAGEMENT, INC

Williams v. STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION OF MARYLAND

Smith v. RITE AID OF MARYLAND, INC

Nickens vs. Mt Vernon Realty