State v. 91st Street Joint Venture

ORDER PER CURIAM. For reasons to be stated in an opinion later to be filed, the Order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City dated September 25, 1991 is hereby vacated; further proceedings in that court are hereby stayed pending determination of the litigation in the Circuit Court for Worcester County entitled ⁶²³ Department of Natural Resources v. 91st Street Joint Venture, Case No. 91CV0804 SP49/69. Costs in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City and in this Court to be paid by the appellee. Mandate to issue forthwith.

Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, McAULIFFE, CHASANOW, KARWACKI and ROBERT M. BELL, JJ. ELDRIDGE, Judge. The issue in this case is whether the Circuit Court for Baltimore City abused its discretion when it issued an interlocutory injunction notwithstanding a pending proceeding in the Circuit Court for Worcester County involving the same parties and the same issues. This opinion sets forth the reasons underlying this Court’s order of March 10,1992, vacating the order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, and staying further proceedings in that court pending resolution of the litigation in the Circuit Court for Worcester County.

The 91st Street Joint Venture owns the Princess Royale Ocean Suite Hotel and Condominiums in Ocean City, Worcester County, Maryland. The Joint Venture wanted to use a portion of its beachfront property, but was unsure if statutes and regulations protecting the beach area dune system would permit the use. After inconclusive discussions with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources regarding the potential uses of the property, the Princess Royale in July 1991 constructed a 14-foot by 14-foot gazebo on its property, to be used as a food and drink concession stand. On August 8, 1991, the State Department of Natural Resources (hereinafter referred to as DNR) filed in the Circuit Court for Worcester County a complaint for injunctive and other relief, contending that “the gazebo structure placed by the Princess Royale in the Beach Erosion Control District is prohibited by law and, as such, is illegal and environmentally unsound and must be removed.” The com ⁶²⁴ plaint further alleged that the gazebo threatened irreparable harm to “the integrity of the Beach Erosion Control District.” DNR requested the court to order the 91st Street Joint Venture to remove the gazebo and to issue a permanent injunction forbidding the 91st Street Joint Venture and the Princess Royale from “placing or constructing any permanent structures in the Beach Control Erosion District,” and for “such other and further relief as justice may require.” DNR also filed a motion for summary judgment.

The Mayor and City Council of Ocean City moved to intervene in the DNR suit. 1 Ocean City separately filed a complaint, which incorporated the allegations of DNR’s complaint and, in addition, contended that the gazebo was: “a) constructed without a permit in violation of Section 34-1 of the [Ocean City] Code; b) constructed east of the building limit line in violation of Section 36-4 of the [Ocean City] Code; and c) constructed without critical area foundations in violation of Section 54-3 of the [Ocean City] Code.” Ocean City sought removal of the gazebo, a permanent injunction, and “such other and further relief as justice may require.” Instead of filing any responsive pleading or motion in the Circuit Court for Worcester County, the Joint Venture on August 15, 1991, filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the State of Maryland and DNR, and later amended the complaint to include the Town of Ocean City as a defendant. The Joint Venture asserted that it had the right to file the action challenging the validity of the relevant ⁶²⁵ regulations pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, Maryland Code (1984), § 10-125 of the State Government Article. 2 The complaint included a request for immediate ex parte injunctive relief (1) restraining the plaintiffs in the Worcester County action from enforcing certain building limit line regulations, (2) requiring them to stay the Worcester County action pending resolution of the Baltimore City action or transfer the Worcester County action for consolidation with the Baltimore City action, and (8) restraining them from enforcing the Ocean City Building Limit Line and certain portions of the “critical area” regulations. On the same day that the complaint was filed, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City issued an ex parte order, restraining DNR from acting to enforce certain regulations, and ordering that DNR either not proceed with its action filed in the Worcester County court or agree to transfer the case to Baltimore City for consolidation with the Joint Venture’s case. The order granted DNR leave to move for a hearing on two days’ notice, and further provided that the Joint Venture was not required to file a bond pursuant to Maryland Rule BB75.

On August 28, 1991, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City entered an ex parte injunction against the Town of Ocean City, “enjoining Ocean City from acting alone or in concert ⁶²⁶ with others to enforce by any means the Ocean City Building Limit Line (‘OC-BLL’) and the ‘critical area’ designation in Chapter 54 of the Code of the Town of Ocean City as the designation relates to land east of the OC-BLL pending the outcome of this action____” The State filed a motion to vacate and dissolve the ex parte injunction and for a hearing, asserting, inter alia, that the Circuit Court for Baltimore City did not have the authority to interfere with the Worcester County action. After a hearing, the circuit court denied the State’s motion. The State filed a motion to stay and a motion for reconsideration of the motion to vacate the ex parte injunction. The court also denied these motions but delayed entry of an interlocutory injunction so that the parties could attempt to settle the matter.

Settlement efforts were unsuccessful, however, and after another hearing, the court entered an order denying the State’s motion to vacate or stay the ex parte injunctions, and granting an interlocutory injunction against the State and Ocean City, which provided as follows: “ORDER “Upon consideration of the Amended Verified Complaint and Memorandum of Law in Support thereof filed by Plaintiff, 91st Street Joint Venture (‘91st Street’), the Motion to Vacate and Dissolve Ex Parte Injunction and 91st Street’s Motion for Interlocutory Injunction against the State of Maryland and the Department of Natural Resources (‘DNR’), and having heard oral argument thereon, and, further, upon consideration of 91st Street’s Motion for Ex Parte Injunction against the Mayor and City Council of Ocean City, Maryland (‘Ocean City’), and upon Ocean City’s waiver of its right to a hearing before interlocutory relief can be entered against it, ... it is, this 25th day of September 1991, “ORDERED, that the State’s Motion to Vacate and Dissolve Ex Parte Injunction and the State’s Motion to ⁶²⁷ Stay Ex Parte Order and/or Interlocutory Injunction or in the Alternative for Reconsideration of the Motion to Vacate Ex Parte Injunction are Denied; and it is further “ORDERED, that an Interlocutory Injunction be and hereby is issued against DNR, restraining and enjoining DNR from acting alone or in concert with others to enforce by any means the Regulations purportedly adopted by DNR as of August 5, 1991, pending the outcome of this action; and it is further “ORDERED, that DNR either (1) not proceed with the action filed August 8, 1991 in the Circuit Court for Worcester County, Case No. 91CV0804 (‘Worcester action’) pending the outcome in this action or (ii) agree to transfer the Worcester action for consolidation with this action in this Court under a new scheduling order; and it is further “ORDERED, that an Interlocutory Injunction be and hereby is issued against Ocean City restraining and enjoining Ocean City from acting alone or in concert with others to enforce by any means the SOC-BLL against 91st Street pending the outcome of this action; and it is further “ORDERED, that Ocean City either (i) not proceed with the action filed August 8, 1991 in the Circuit Court for Worcester County, Case No. 91CV0804 (‘Worcester action’) pending the outcome in this action or (ii) agree to transfer the Worcester action for consolidation with this action in this court under a new scheduling order; and it is further “ORDERED, that Plaintiff is not required to file a bond pursuant to Md.Rule BB75.” After filing an answer to the complaint in Baltimore City, the State and Ocean City filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. We issued a writ of certiorari before argument in the intermediate appellate court. The first question presented by the State and Ocean City on appeal is whether “the Circuit Court for Baltimore ⁶²⁸ City improperly exercise[d] jurisdiction over a subsequently-filed action involving the same parties and the same issues” as involved in the action already filed in the Circuit Court for Worcester County. We conclude that the Circuit Court for Baltimore City abused its discretion when it entertained the Joint Venture’s action.

It has long been the rule in this State that, once a court takes jurisdiction over a particular subject matter, another court of concurrent jurisdiction generally should abstain from interfering with the first proceeding. In Brooks v. Delaplaine, 1 Md.Ch. 351 (1848), a creditor of the insolvent Delaplaine filed in the Frederick County Court an action for accounting against Delaplaine’s trustee. Then, another creditor filed in the Court of Chancery an action for accounting against the same trustee. Upon being informed of the pending action in the Frederick County Court, the Court of Chancery