BRETT KIMBERLIN,

*
* IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

Plaintiff,
v.

*
*
*

MARYLAND FOR
MONTGOMERY COUNTY

*
*

WILLIAM HOGE,
Et al, Defendants

*
* Case No. 38096

*
OCT 1 1 ?3!3

Clerk of the Circuit Court

DEFENDANT HOGE'S MOTION TO DISMlSSntnfr,G:'y Coi!nty. Md.

Pursuant to MD Rule 2-322(a)(3) and 2-322(b)(2), Defendant William Hoge,

through his attorney F. Patrick Ostronic, respectfully moves for an order dismissing the
above captioned case for insufficiency of process and failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
FACTS

1. On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed the above-referenced case with this Court.

2. On September 6, 2013, the Clerk issued a 30 Day Summons to Mr. Hoge, which
was mailed to Plaintiff for service.

3. On or about September 12, 2013 Mr. Hoge accepted service. 4. On October 10, 2013. Mr. Hoge filed a Motion to Dismiss. The Court has not yet
ruled on that motion.

5. On October 16, 2013 Plaintiff gave Mr. Hoge a partial copy (page 19 was missing)
of a First Amended Complaint.

6. Mr. Hoge informed his attorney of the First Amended Complaint and Attorney

Ostronic reviewed the file copy of the First Amended Complaint at the Court on
October 18, 2013.

7. As of this filing, there has been no appropriate service of process of the First
Amended Complaint. According to the online Document Tracking for this case,

summons were re-issued on October 18th. Mr. Hoge files this Motion toDismiss
based on his attorney's review of the First Amended Complaint at the Court.
GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL

8. MD Rule 2-305 requires pleadings to clearly state the facts necessary "to
constitute a cause of action and a demand for the relief sought."
9. Plaintiff requests compensatory damages in excess of $75,000 but Plaintiff

includes nothing in his complaint of any specificity as to actual financial damages suffered because of Mr. Hoge. Mr. Hoge previously citedthis lack of specificity in
his earlier Motion to Dismiss referenced in Paragraph 4.
10.Plaintiff is seeking "punitive damages of no less than one million dollars." MD

Rule 2-305 requires the claimant to include a general statement that the amount

sought exceeds $75,000 but "shall not specify the amount sought." Mr. Hoge
previously cited this in his earlier Motion to Dismiss referenced in Paragraph 4.

11.Further, Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages absent an award of compensatory damages and, again, Plaintiff has not enumerated any actual
financial damages suffered because of Mr. Hoge.

12. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint with no companion documents. MD

Rule 2-341(e) requires a party filing an amended pleading to provide a comparison

copy to highlight the changes made.
Conclusion

13.For the reasons stated above, Defendant William Hoge respectfully requests the
Complaint be dismissed, with costs to be adjudged against the Plaintiff, or for such
other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and proper.

Date: QcT~ &A^/^

Respectfully submitted,

F. Patrick Ostronic

932 Hungerford Drive, Ste 28A Rockville, Maryland 20850 (410)440-4833

Counsel for Defendant