Opinion
Civil Action No. WMN-02-1232
April 25, 2003
MEMORANDUM
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Alter, Amend, and Set Aside Dismissal Order (Paper No. 42). The motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for decision. Upon review of the pleadings and applicable case law, the Court determines that no hearing is necessary (Local Rule 105.6) and that the motion will be denied.
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that they became ill from food poisoning as a result of food served to them on their flight from Barbados to the United States. None of the three Plaintiffs is a resident of Maryland. Pursuant to Local Rule 103.4, Defendants moved on November 8, 2002 for an order. requiring Plaintiffs to post security for costs in this action. Plaintiffs did not respond to Defendant's motion. Subsequently, on December 4, 2002, this Court ordered: "That within 14 days of this Order, Plaintiffs show good cause why such security should not be required or each deposit $150 with the Clerk as security for costs." Paper No. 39. Plaintiffs did not respond in any manner to the order.
Local Rule 103.4 provides: Any party against whom affirmative relief (other than a compulsory counterclaim) is filed may file a motion requesting that the party seeking the affirmative relief give security for costs if that party is not a resident of this District. Upon the filing of the motion, the Court shall issue a show cause order to the party seeking affirmative relief. A party who does not show cause why such security should not be required shall deposit with the Clerk on the date that the show cause response is due or on such later date as may be set by the Court the sum of $150 or such higher amount as the Court determines is appropriate. The Court may dismiss the claim of a party who fails to deposit the required security. This Rule shall not apply to any party proceeding in forma pauperis or as a seaman under 28 U.S.C. § 1916.
Finally, on January 8, 2003, the Court entered an Order dismissing the action. Paper No. 41. Plaintiffs now argue, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), that the Court's dismissal of their action was "premature and lacking in the necessary preconditions to satisfy customary `show cause' practice and procedural due process of law." Additionally, Plaintiffs assert that "said Local Rule on its face and as applied to them, violates the principal of equal protection of the laws inasmuch as providing of security is not required on the same basis of residents of the District." Mot. at 1-2.
First, with respect to Plaintiffs' argument that they had no notice that they would be required to post costs because they were expecting entry of an order directing them to give security and giving them a reasonable time to comply with the order to give security (Mot. at ¶ 5), the Court notes that its December 4, 2002 Order gave Plaintiffs a fourteen day period within which Plaintiffs could argue that good cause existed not to post security or each pay $150. In their reply, Plaintiffs argue that they interpreted the phrase should not be required, found in the Court's December 4, 2002 Order, "as being prospective in nature as compared to the present tense `is not required.' That is, the Court Order was stating that the failure to deposit the $150.00 per plaintiff or show cause why security `should not be required,' would result in the Court entering an order requiring the plaintiffs to make the deposit." Reply at 1. The Court disagrees with Plaintiffs' interpretation of its Order. The Court's Order specified that Plaintiffs could either argue why good cause existed for them not to pay security for costs or each pay the $150. Plaintiffs did neither.
Plaintiffs also argue that because Local Rule 103.4 is written in the disjunctive, they have a "right" to expect entry of a subsequent order establishing a "late [sic] date as may be set by the Court, before the Court proceeds to dismiss the claim of a party who fails to deposit security." Reply at 2. Again, the Court disagrees with Plaintiffs' analysis. Local Rule 103.4 provides that "a party who does not show cause . . . shall deposit [security] with the Clerk on the date that the show cause response is due or on such later date as may be set by the Court. . . ." The Court ordered that the security be deposited within 14 days of its December 4, 2002 Order if Plaintiffs did not show good cause. No later date was set by the Court, and the Local Rule does not require that the Court set such a date.
Second, with respect to Plaintiffs' equal protection argument, the Court notes that Plaintiffs provide no legal support for their argument. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that non-residents may be required to post security for costs in return for bringing a claim in a foreign jurisdiction. Kentucky Finance Corp. v. Paramount Auto Exchange Corp., 262 U.S. 544, 552 (1923) ("No doubt a corporation of one state seeking relief in the courts of another must conform to the prevailing modes of proceeding in those courts and submit to reasonable rules respecting the payment of costs or giving security therefore and the like.")
Based on the above analysis, Plaintiffs' motion will be denied. A separate order consistent with this memorandum will issue.
ORDER
Pursuant to the foregoing memorandum, and for the reasons stated therein, IT IS this 25th day of April 2003, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, hereby ORDERED:
1. That Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter, Amend, and Set Aside Dismissal Order (Paper No. 42) is hereby DENIED;
2. That the Clerk of the Court shall mail or transmit copies of the foregoing memorandum and this order to all counsel of record.