Baker v. Montgomery County

HARRELL, J. It seems that speed cameras are a particularly unpopular law enforcement tool, having provoked some Marylanders to vandalism. See Erin Cox, Speed Cameras v. Vandals, Balt. Sun, 28 June 2012, at Al. Angry drivers are reported to have set fire to, hurled rocks at, and slingshot marbles at the cameras.

In perhaps the most extreme example of retribution, we are informed that a man approached a car-mounted speed camera along the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, brandishing a shotgun and a hammer. He smashed two of the car’s windows with the hammer before fleeing the scene (the occupant of the car was unhurt). Not deterred, the local governments of Montgomery County, the Mayor and Council of Rockville, the City of Gaithersburg, and Chevy Chase Village (referred to collectively as Respondents) established speed cameras — defined technically as “speed monitoring systems.” These systems recorded, ⁶⁹⁶ among many others, Petitioners 1 traveling in their vehicles at least ten miles per hour over the posted speed limit on various stretches of road within those jurisdictions. Respondents issued to Petitioners citations, each carrying a maximum civil penalty of $40.

Petitioners, leaning somewhat more to pacifism than the folks in the above news accounts, sought a less violent resolution of their grievances with the cameras by filing, after paying the penalties, a complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. Counts I-VTI of Petitioners’ ultimate complaint asserted claims sounding in tort. Counts VIII and IX sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Petitioners asserted that Respondents’ contracts with their common speed monitoring system contractor, ACS State and Local Solutions, Inc. (“ACS”), violated Maryland Code (1977, 2009 Repl.Vol.), Transportation Article, § 21-809(j). 2 Section 21 — 809(j), in order to discourage abuse by contractors, prohibits “Montgomery County” from remunerating, on a per-citation basis, a contractor who “operates” a speed monitoring system on the county’s behalf.

The Circuit Court concluded that Respondents, and not ACS, operated their speed monitoring systems (within the meaning of the statute) and, regardless, § 21-809Q) applied to Montgomery County only, i.e., not the municipalities. The court opined further that, even if it were accurate to state that ACS operated the relevant speed monitoring systems, the statute does not envision a private cause of action to support Petitioners’ tort-based claims. In any event, the trial court held that Petitioners waived their ability to maintain their complaint by paying voluntarily the citation penalties. Accordingly, the court granted Respondents’ motions for summary judgment on all counts.

Petitioners appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. The intermediate appellate court affirmed, agreeing with the Cir ⁶⁹⁷ cuit Court that § 21-809 does not contain an express or implied private cause of action to support the maintenance of Petitioners’ tort claims. The Court of Special Appeals declared moot the declaratory and injunctive relief claims because Respondents amended their contract with ACS to state specifically their understanding that the governments operate the speed monitoring systems. Petitioners secured a writ of certiorari from this Court to review the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.

We shall affirm the judgment of the intermediate appellate court, although not for all the same reasons it offered. As an initial matter, Petitioners, although arguing so in their brief, failed to question in their petition for writ of certiorari whether § 21-809(j) applies to all Respondents, not merely the local government of Montgomery County. Therefore, we shall not address it. 3 Md. Rule 8 — 131(b). We find no merit in Respondents’ argument that Petitioners waived their ability to maintain the present litigation by paying voluntarily their speed monitoring system fines.

Whether Petitioners were speeding at the time of their citation and whether Respondents’ contracts with ACS violated § 21-809(j) are distinct and separate issues. Moreover, Maryland’s permissive counterclaim rule of procedure does not preclude Petitioners from filing the present lawsuit, if actionable, after paying the fines. Petitioners’ momentum in this case ends there, however. Section 21-809 does not provide an express or implied private cause of action in tort, for the following reasons.

First, § 21-809 is a general welfare statute that does not benefit a particular class of persons, let alone Petitioners. Second, the statute provides a remedy in the District Court for challenging speed monitoring system citations. These factors, combined with the lack of supporting legislative history endorsing an implied private right of action, establish that § 21-809 does ⁶⁹⁸ not create a private cause of action. With regard to Petitioners’ injunctive and declaratory relief claims, Petitioners concede that they lack the necessary taxpayer standing to pursue those claims, in the event we did not find a private cause of action in the statutory scheme.

Accordingly, we shall not address their argument that the local governments’ contracts with ACS violate § 21 — 809(j). I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On 25 January 2006, the Maryland General Assembly, overriding then-Governor Ehrlich’s veto, enacted House Bill 443 (2005), which was codified as Transportation Article, § 21-809. 2006 Md. Laws 15 . The statute took effect on 24 February 2006. Section 21-809 authorized the use of speed monitoring systems on certain highways in school zones and residential districts in Montgomery County.

Transp. Art., § 21-809(b)(i). The statute defines a “speed monitoring system” as “a device with one or more motor vehicle sensors producing recorded images of motor vehicles traveling at speeds at least ten miles per hour above the posted speed limit.” Transp. Art., § 21-809(a)(5).

When a speed monitoring system detects an offending motor vehicle, it is supposed to create a “recorded image” 4 of the rear of the motor vehicle, two time-stamped images showing a stationary object near the motor vehicle, and at least one clear and legible identification of the motor vehicle’s entire license plate. Transp. Art., § 21-809(a)(4)(ii). The “local police department” 5 issues and mails to the “owner” 6 a citation for the speeding offense, which carries a ⁶⁹⁹ civil penalty not exceeding $40.

Transp. Art., § 21-809(c), (d). A citation recipient may pay the civil penalty or may elect to contest the citation at a District Court trial. Transp.

Art., § 21-809(d)(5). The latter option must be printed on the citation. Md.Code (1978, 2006 RepLVol.), Cts. & Jud. Proc.

Art., § 7-302(e)(l). An owner is not subject to a civil penalty if a police officer issued to him/her a citation at the time of the moving violation or if an owner defends successfully against the citation in a District Court trial. Transp. Art., § 21-809(c)(1), (f)(1) & (f)(4).

If a citation recipient elects a trial in the District Court, the local government must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the citation recipient violated the speed limit. Transp. Art., § 21-809(e)(3). The government must submit in evidence a certificate alleging the citation recipient violated the speed limit; a certificate of training, issued to the “speed monitoring system operator” 7 upon completion of training; a daily log showing that the speed monitoring system operator performed successfully a self-test prior to producing a recorded image; and, a signed certificate of calibration, issued annually by an independent calibration laboratory.

Transp. Art., § 21 — 809(b)(2)—(4), (e)(1). A citation recipient may demand the speed monitoring system operator be present at trial to testify. Transp.

Art., § 21-809(e)(2). Moreover, the statute permits a citation recipient to argue in his or her defense that the vehicle or its registration plates were stolen before the violation occurred; he or she was not operating the recorded vehicle at the time of the violation; or, any other issues or evidence that the District Court deems pertinent. Transp. Art., § 21 — 809(f)(l)(i)—(iii).

The gravamen of Petitioners’ complaint centered on Transportation Article § 21-809(j), which provides, “If a contractor ⁷⁰⁰ operates a speed monitoring system on behalf of Montgomery County, the contractor’s fee may not be contingent on the number of citations issued or paid.” Transp. Art., § 21-809(j). On or about 9 February 2007, Montgomery County contracted with ACS to “provide for the implementation, use, and servicing of photo speed enforcement technology and services as requested by [Montgomery] County.” The Montgomery County — ACS contract specifies that ACS will “provide, install, and support all traffic camera equipment” and “supply an automated violation services solution.” Under the section titled “Compensation,” the Montgomery County — ACS contract states that ACS shall be compensated “at a rate of $16.25 per paid citation or $18,000 per month [for the duration] of the program, whichever is greater.” Between 21 February 2007 and 28 May 2007, the municipalities entered separately into similar contracts with ACS. These contracts incorporate by reference the Montgomery County-ACS contract.

The munieipalities-ACS contracts provide similar compensation formulae also: that ACS will be compensated at a rate of $16.25 per paid citation or $2,999 per month for the duration of the program, whichever is greater (Chevy Chase Village contracted for $16.25 per paid citation or $6,000 per month of the program). Respondents issued speed monitoring system citations to Petitioners for speeding violations that occurred during 2007 and 2008. The Chevy Chase Village Police Department issued a citation to Janet Marburger for a violation occurring on 23 February 2008 and two citations to Matthew Charles Baker for violations occurring on 9 July 2008. The Rockville City Police Department issued a citation to Johnny Ray Garza for violations occurring on 11 and 13 November 2007, to Thomas Jeffrey Wheatley for a violation occurring on 19 July 2008, to Kenneth King Sleeman for violations occurring on 17 August 2008 and 29 September 2008, and to David Alfred Schiller for a violation occurring on 4 September 2008.

The Gaithersburg Police Department issued a citation to Walter McKee for a violation occurring on 19 August 2008. The Montgomery County Department of Police issued a citation to Garza for a ⁷⁰¹ violation occurring on 24 November 2007, to Sleeman for a violation occurring on 10 February 2008, to Aristone Luiz Pereira Jr. for violations occurring on 4 and 8 April 2008, and to Schiller for a violation occurring on 25 June 2008. Petitioners paid voluntarily the civil penalty associated with each of their citations; thus no District Court trials were conducted. Between September 2008 and June 2009, prior to the final disposition of Petitioners’ claims in this litigation in the Circuit Court, Respondents amended their contracts with ACS.

The amendments stated that ACS provides speed monitoring system equipment only, and that Respondents are solely responsible for the operation of their respective systems. Chevy Chase Village and ACS amended further their contract to change the compensation formula to a flat rate per month, i.e., compensation was not keyed to the number of successful citations issued.

II

PROCEDURAL HISTORY On 2 May 2008, Timothy P. Leahy, on his behalf and others situated similarly, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. Leahy named the City of Rockville, Montgomery County, and the Town of Chevy Chase (not to be confused with the distinct municipality of Chevy Chase Village) as defendants. He alleged that the defendants’ contracts with ACS violated Transportation Article § 21-809(j) by compensating ACS on a per-citation-paid basis. Leahy demanded a jury trial and $20 million in damages for the economic loss suffered by himself and others situated similarly for having paid “unlawful” fines.

On 16 May 2008, Leahy filed an amended complaint, adding the City of Gaithersburg as a defendant. Leahy followed with a motion to certify the class of plaintiffs. Between 21 April 2008 and 21 July 2008, Rockville, Montgomery County, the Town of Chevy Chase, and Gaithersburg filed motions in opposition to class certification. Rockville, Montgomery County, and Gaithersburg filed also motions to dismiss.

Additionally, Gaithersburg and the Town of Chevy ⁷⁰² Chase filed motions for summary judgment. On 30 July 2008, the Circuit Court granted the Town of Chevy Chase’s motion for summary judgment. After a hearing on 26 August 2008, the Circuit Court granted the remaining defendants’ motions, dismissing with prejudice Leahy’s claims against them, and denied Leahy’s motion for class certification, without prejudice. On 6 October 2008, Petitioners 8 filed, on their behalf and others situated similarly, a second amended complaint against Montgomery County, Rockville, Gaithersburg, and Chevy Chase Village.

The second complaint contained nine counts, entitled: violation of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, unjust enrichment, conversion, constructive trust, civil conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. Montgomery County and Rock-ville answered. Gaithersburg and Chevy Chase Village filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, which Petitioners opposed. After conducting a hearing on 12 February 2009, the Circuit Court denied Gaithersburg and Chevy Chase Village’s motion, but permitted them to renew or file a new motion for summary judgment after completion of discovery.

Gaithersburg and Chevy Chase Village filed an answer to the second amended complaint on 16 March 2009. Petitioners filed a third (and final) amended complaint against Respondents on 7 October 2009. The third amended complaint contained the same nine counts as the second amended complaint. Petitioners alleged that ACS operated the subject speed monitoring systems for Respondents and that Respondents compensated ACS on a per-citation basis.

As such, Petitioners urged that the contracts between ACS and Respondents were in contravention of § 21 — 809(j) and therefore were ultra Adres, rendering all of the previously ⁷⁰³ issued speed monitoring system citations invalid. Petitioners asked that Respondents refund the collected civil penalties stemming from the speed monitoring system violations, with interest. Respondents opposed Petitioners third amended complaint by filing, between 27 October 2009 and 2 April 2010, motions to strike and motions to dismiss or for summary judgment. 9 The Circuit Court granted Respondents’ motions for dismissal and/or summary judgment at a 15 July 2010 hearing, issuing a written order to that effect on 3 November 2010. First, the Circuit Court concluded that § 21-809(j) applied to Montgomery County only.

Second, the court found, based on undisputed material facts as pleaded, that Respondents operated the speed monitoring systems. 10 Section 21-809 requires a speed monitoring system operator to maintain diagnostic logs and to submit them into evidence at contested trials of citations. Respondents’ employees performed these tasks, and thus, a fortiori, Respondents operate their speed monitoring systems. Moreover, Respondents did not delegate final decision-making authority to ACS to determine whether any particular recorded image constituted a violation of § 21-809 that should be pursued by citation, reserving that authority for themselves. ⁷⁰⁴ The Circuit Court opined further, in the alternative, that even if ACS were deemed to be the operator of the subject speed monitoring systems within the meaning of the statute, § 21-809 did not create a private cause of action for Petitioners to sue for an alleged violation of subsection (f) of the statute. Even if a private cause of action was authorized, the court concluded, Petitioners waived the right to sue separately on this ground after they paid voluntarily the civil penalties.

On these additional bases, the Circuit Court granted Respondents’ motion for summary judgment as to Petitioners’ seven claims sounding in tort. 11 Petitioners filed timely an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, which, in a reported opinion, affirmed the Circuit Court. Baker v. Montgomery Cnty., 201 Md.App. 642, 30 A.3d 267 (2011). The three-judge panel of the Court of Special Appeals addressed, as a threshold issue, whether a private cause of action exists. It noted that Transportation Article § 21-809 does not provide expressly for a private cause of action.

Baker, 201 Md.App. at 670 , 30 A.3d at 284 . The panel then analyzed whether the statute created implicitly a private cause of action, relying on the applicable analysis discussed in Erie Insurance Company v. Chops, 322 Md. 79 , 585 A.2d 232 (1991). The Erie factors, it concluded, militated against finding an implicit private cause of action in the statute because § 21-809 provides a District Court remedy. Baker, 201 Md.App. at 670-79 , 30 A.3d at 284-89 .

Moreover, because Petitioners are not in a particular class of persons intended to benefit specially from the statute, finding an implicit private cause of action would be inconsistent with the purpose of the statute. Id. Thus, the Court of Special Appeals concluded that Petitioners’ seven claims sounding in tort were not actionable. Baker, 201 Md.App. at 679 , 30 A.3d at 289 .

The panel concluded that the remaining claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were moot, in light of the September ⁷⁰⁵ 2008-June 2009 amendments to the Respondents — ACS contracts. Baker, 201 Md.App. at 680-81 , 30 A.3d at 290 . Petitioners filed a petition for writ of certiorari with this Court, which we granted on 16 March 2012. Baker v. Montgomery Cnty., 425 Md. 227 , 40 A.3d 39 (2012).

Petitioners presented three questions for our review: whether Petitioners’ payment of the speed monitoring system fine waived their subsequent ability to mount their challenge to the ACS contracts under Transportation Article § 21 — 809(j); whether Transportation Article § 21-809 provides a private cause of action; and, whether the amendments to the Respondents— ACS contracts mooted Petitioners’ injunctive relief and declaratory judgment claims. 12 III. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under Maryland Rule 2-501, the grant of a motion for summary judgment is appropriate only “if the motion and response show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the party in whose favor judgment is entered is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Md. Rule 2 — 501(f). The parties here agree that there are no genuine disputes of material fact generated on the record before the Circuit Court. Thus, as was said in Breslin v. Powell, “This case presents a question of statutory interpretation, and therefore, we review the trial court’s disposition through summary judgment under a non-deferential standard of review.” 421 ⁷⁰⁶ Md. 266, 277 , 26 A.3d 878, 885 (2011) (citing Walter v. Gunter, 367 Md. 386, 392 , 788 A.2d 609, 612 (2002)).

We determine whether the trial court’s decision was correct as a matter of law. Id. (quoting Wash. Suburban Sanitary Comm’n v. Phillips, 413 Md. 606, 618 , 994 A.2d 411, 419 (2010)).

Our review of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment is limited ordinarily to the legal grounds relied upon explicitly in its disposition. River Walk Apartments, LLC v. Twigg, 396 Md. 527, 542 , 914 A.2d 770, 778-79 (2007) (quoting Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Berrett, 395 Md. 439, 450-51 , 910 A.2d 1072, 1080 (2006)). Moreover, when construing a statute, we must “discern the legislative purpose, the ends to be accomplished, or the evils to be remedied.... ” We approach the statutory interpretation process by looking first at the plain language of a statute, giving the words their natural and ordinary meaning.

If the language is clear and unambiguous on its face, our inquiry ends ordinarily. If, however, the language is ambiguous, we move on to examine the “legislative history, case law, statutory purpose, as well as the structure of the statute” to aid us in ascertaining the intent of the Legislature. When focusing on the relevant part of a statutory scheme, we attempt to harmonize the part with the whole, considering the “purpose, aim, or policy of the enacting body.” When interpreting an ambiguous statute, we must reject any construction that would be illogical or nonsensical. Davis v. State, 426 Md. 211, 218-19 , 43 A.3d 1044, 1048 (2012) (internal citations omitted).

IV

DISCUSSION A. Petitioners’ Ability To Maintain the Present Action Against Respondents After Paying Speed Monitoring System Penalties Without Protest We conclude that, by paying the speed monitoring system penalties for issued citations, Petitioners did not waive their right to pursue subsequently a claim against Respondents for violating Transportation Article § 21-809(j), if such a ⁷⁰⁷ claim is otherwise actionable. Respondents urge to the contrary, arguing that principles of res judicata prevent Petitioners from doing so and that, instead of paying simply the civil penalties, Petitioners should have elected to stand trial in the District Court and raised the claimed violation of § 21 — 809(j) as a counterclaim or defense in those proceedings. Maryland’s permissive counterclaim rule of procedure, Maryland Rule § 2-331(a), 13 enables Petitioners to raise such a potential counterclaim as a separate action. “[Wjhere the same facts may be asserted as either a defense or a counterclaim, and the issue raised by the defense is not litigated and determined so as to be precluded by collateral estoppel, the defendant in the previous action is not barred by res judicata from subsequently maintaining an action on the counterclaim.” Rowland v. Harrison, 320 Md. 223, 235-36 , 577 A.2d 51, 57 (1990); see also Moore v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., 376 Md. 558 , 831 A.2d 12 (2003). Here, Petitioners paid voluntarily their fines and did not challenge in the District Court, as a means to defeat assessment of the civil penalty, whether the speed monitoring systems were being managed in contravention of § 21-809(j).

That Petitioners did not litigate their § 21 — 809(j) claim in the District Court is not fatal at the threshold, in and of itself, to the present claim. In Rowland , the defendant withdrew from a circuit court before it was adjudicated her counterclaim against the plaintiff/veterinarian for professional malpractice; yet, this Court concluded that she could pursue her counterclaim in a subsequent, separate action. 320 Md. at 230 , 577 A.2d at 54 . Respondents retort that a defendant may not bring a separate and subsequent action based on a prior counterclaim that ⁷⁰⁸ could have been raised if “[t]he relationship between the counterclaim and the plaintiffs claim is such that successful prosecution of the second action would nullify the initial judgment or would impair rights established in the initial action.” Rowland, 320 Md. at 232 , 577 A.2d at 55 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 22(2)(b) (1982)). Whether Petitioners were operating their vehicles ten or more miles per hour over the posted speed limits at the time of their citations and whether Respondents’ contracts with ACS contravene § 21 — 809(j) are related distantly.

The factual inquiry surrounding the former question involves principally who was operating the vehicle at the time and whether the speed of the vehicle was captured accurately. See Transp. Art., § 21-809(f). The factual inquiry surrounding the latter question (apart from the pure statutory interpretation question) involves whether Respondents operated their speed monitoring systems within the meaning of the statute, and if not, was the means of compensating ACS in conformance with the statute.

Thus, Petitioners’ § 21-809(j) defense, if successful, would not nullify Respondents’ prior admission of speeding, represented by paying the penalty before trial in the District Court. As we