MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN KOELTL, District Judge
On October 19, 2010, the Court entered an Order dismissing the appeal for failure to prosecute. The Order provided that the Order would be vacated and the case restored to the Court's calendar if the appellant filed by November 15, 2010, an application showing good cause why an extension should be granted. The Court has received the attached request for an extension from the appellant, in which he states that he did not receive the Court's prior correspondence. Accordingly, the October 19, 2010, Order of this Court is vacated and the Clerk is directed to restore this case to the Court's calendar. The appellant should file his brief by November 29, 2010. The appellee should respond by December 20, 2010. The appellant's reply, if any, is due by January 3, 2011.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York November 5, 2010
ase/montgomery-village-v-mark#p979620 A.2d 975, 979 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1993) (quoting
McGaw v. Acker, Merrall Condit Co., 73 A. 731, 734 (Md. 1909)). For example, a plaintiff in a malicious prosecution action is entitled to recover
attorneys' fees expended in defending the unwarranted prosecution.
Tully v. Dasher, 244 A.2d 207, 217 (Md. 1968). Here, the plaintiffs seek to recover the cost of retaining attorneys
to defend themselves in the state court actions, which they allege LVNV was prohibited from bringing and therefore consitututed an "attempt . . . to enforce a right with knowledge that the right does not exist." Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 14-202(8). According to the plaintiffs' allegations, accepted as true for the purposes of the motion to dismiss, LVNV's "wrongful acts . . . involved the plaintiff[s] in litigation with others," which made it "necessary to incur expense to protect [their] interest[s]."
McGaw, 73 A. at 734. Thus, if the plaintiffs succeed in proving that LVNV violated the MCPA and/or the MCDCA when it filed lawsuits against them, and that the expenditure of attorneys' fees to defend themselves in those actions was "reasonable and necessary,"
id., they may be entitled to recover those costs as actual damages.
Accordingly, LVNV's motion to dismiss Counts II and III will be denied.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs have stated claims on which relief can be granted on all counts except Count I. A separate order follows.
ORDER
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. the defendant's motion to dismiss (docket entry no. 19) is
DENIED in part and
GRANTED in part; and
2. recognizing that a settlement conference is scheduled for January 2011, counsel should provide their respective proposals for any discovery they may think necessary to prepare for that conference by November 19, 2010.