Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Louis Peregoff, Individually and On Behalf of All Persons Similarly Situated v. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, 885 F.2d 866, 4th Cir. (1989)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    25 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Louis Peregoff filed a Section 1983 action challenging Baltimore Gas & Electric's practice of terminating utility services for nonpayment without notice or a hearing. The district court dismissed the action based on res judicata, since Peregoff had previously filed two similar state court actions against Baltimore Gas & Electric that were dismissed on the merits in one case and based on res judicata in the other. The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding that the requirements for claim preclusion under Maryland law were satisfied.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1989-09-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 885 F.2d 866 Docket: 89-1428

    Original Title

    Louis Peregoff, Individually and on Behalf of All Persons Similarly Situated v. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, 885 F.2d 866, 4th Cir. (1989)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case in which Louis Peregoff filed a Section 1983 action challenging Baltimore Gas & Electric's practice of terminating utility services for nonpayment without notice or a hearing. The district court dismissed the action based on res judicata, since Peregoff had previously filed two similar state court actions against Baltimore Gas & Electric that were dismissed on the merits in one case and based on res judicata in the other. The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding that the requirements for claim preclusion under Maryland law were satisfied.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    25 views3 pages

    Louis Peregoff, Individually and On Behalf of All Persons Similarly Situated v. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, 885 F.2d 866, 4th Cir. (1989)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Louis Peregoff filed a Section 1983 action challenging Baltimore Gas & Electric's practice of terminating utility services for nonpayment without notice or a hearing. The district court dismissed the action based on res judicata, since Peregoff had previously filed two similar state court actions against Baltimore Gas & Electric that were dismissed on the merits in one case and based on res judicata in the other. The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding that the requirements for claim preclusion under Maryland law were satisfied.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    885 F.

    2d 866
    Unpublished Disposition

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Louis PEREGOFF, Individually and on behalf of all persons
    similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, DefendantAppellee.
    No. 89-1428.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted July 31, 1989.
    Decided Sept. 15, 1989.

    Louis Peregoff, appellant pro se.


    Ronald Dicky Byrd, Stephen Joseph Rosasco, Baltimore Gas & Electric
    Company, for appellee.
    Before DONALD RUSSELL and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges, and
    BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Louis Peregoff, an attorney, filed this 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action on behalf of
    himself and all persons similarly situated, challenging Baltimore Gas &
    Electric's (BG & E) practice of terminating gas and electric service for
    nonpayment of bills without notice and a hearing. The district court dismissed
    the action on res judicata grounds, and we affirm.

    Peregoff brought two state court actions in Maryland in which he also alleged

    that termination of gas and electric service without notice and a hearing
    constituted a denial of due process. In both of those actions, as in the present
    case, Peregoff sought monetary damages, refunds, and injunctive relief to stop
    the challenged practice, although the requests for relief were worded somewhat
    differently in each action. The first case, brought before the Baltimore City
    Circuit Court, was dismissed on the merits. The second action, brought in the
    Baltimore County Circuit Court, was dismissed on res judicata grounds. After
    unsuccessfully appealing the second case, Peregoff brought this action.
    3

    With respect to Sec. 1983 actions, federal courts are required to give the same
    preclusive effect to prior state court decisions as would be applied in the state
    court where the original judgment was rendered. Migra v. Warren City School
    Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 83 (1984); Kremer v. Chemical Construction
    Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 466 (1982); 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738. Therefore, Maryland
    preclusion law applies to determine whether this action is barred by res
    judicata.

    Claim preclusion applies under Maryland law if three requirements are met.
    First, there must have been a final judgment on the merits in the earlier
    litigation. Next, there must be identity of the parties or privity among the
    parties. Finally, the causes of action must be the same. Snell v. Mayor of Havre
    de Grace, 837 F.2d 173, 175 (4th Cir.1988), citing Alvey v. Alvey, 225 Md.
    386, 171 A.2d 92 (1961).

    All three requirements are met in this action. First, the Baltimore City Circuit
    Court dismissed the action on the merits, thus constituting a final judgment.
    Next, the parties are identical in each action. Third, the issues are the same in
    each case--Peregoff claimed in each case that BG & E's practice of terminating
    service without notice and a hearing constituted a denial of due process, and in
    each case he sought damages, refunds, and an end to the practice.1 In addition,
    in the Baltimore County Circuit Court action, the court dismissed the case on
    res judicata grounds, providing this Court with clear evidence of the preclusive
    effect the first action would have in state court.

    We affirm the district court's dismissal of Peregoff's action on res judicata


    grounds. 2 In light of this disposition, we deny Peregoff's motion to dismiss the
    Clerk of the Court's order for a pro se signature by appellant as moot. We
    dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues recently have been
    decided authoritatively.

    AFFIRMED.

    Although Peregoff asserted that the actions were different because of the
    different wording in the requests for injunctive relief and because of the
    difference in monetary damages he sought, claim preclusion was properly
    applied because a difference in legal theory or requested relief does not change
    the cause of action for preclusion purposes. Kutzik v. Young, 730 F.2d 149,
    152 (4th Cir.1984)

    We note that BG & E moved for attorney's fees under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 in the
    district court at the time of judgment. As that motion has not been disposed of
    by the district court, we do not address the motion in this opinion. When the
    motion is decided, it will be separately appealable to this Court. Budinich v.
    Becton Dickinson and Co., 56 U.S.L.W. 4453 (U.S. May 23, 1988) (No. 87283)

    You might also like