Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carmax Auto Superstores, Inc. v. Sibley

United States District Court, D. Maryland

July 13, 2016

CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY, Defendant,
v.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., ET AL., Third-Party Defendants.

          Carmax Auto Superstores, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Joshua B. Waxman, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Adam Joel Singer, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, Pamela Anne Bresnahan, Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP & Richard William Black, Littler Mendelson PC.

          Montgomery B. Sibley, Defendant, Pro Se.

          Carmax Auto Superstores, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Joshua B. Waxman, Littler Mendelson, P.C..

          Richard W. Black, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Pamela Anne Bresnahan, Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP & Adam Joel Singer, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP.

          Littler Mendelson, PC., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Pamela Anne Bresnahan, Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP & Adam Joel Singer, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP.

          Joshua B. Waxman, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Pamela Anne Bresnahan, Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP & Adam Joel Singer, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP.

          Carmax Auto Superstores, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Joshua B. Waxman, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Adam Joel Singer, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP & Pamela Anne Bresnahan, Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ROGER W. TITUS, District Judge.

         Montgomery Blair Sibley ("Sibley") is trained and was previously licensed as an attorney. He was suspended from the practice of law for three years in Florida (2008), three years in the District of Columbia (2010) and indefinitely in New York (2009).[1] The suspensions were based on Sibley's pursuit of meritless and vexatious litigation. He has not been reinstated by these jurisdictions.

         In January 2011, Sibley obtained employment as a sales consultant for CarMax. The relationship did not end well. CarMax terminated Sibley's employment on May 6, 2016 after Sibley had formally requested arbitration in April 2016 for a number of grievances. Although Sibley initiated the arbitration proceeding, he unequivocally and in writing communicated his intent to pursue his claims instead in litigation. After Sibley did so, CarMax filed a petition on May 16, 2016, asking this Court to compel arbitration regarding all of Sibley's claims against it. ECF No. 1. On May 25, 2016, Sibley filed an Answer, Counterclaim, and Third-Party Complaint against CarMax and additional Third-Party Defendants, the attorneys and law firm representing CarMax: Joshua B. Waxman, Richard W. Black and the law firm of Little, Mendelson, P.C. ECF No. 8. Since that time, Sibley has flooded the Court with nine additional motions and two amended or supplemental Answers and Counterclaims. ECF Nos. 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 27, 28, 32, 33, and 35. CarMax has filed one Motion to Dismiss Counts Three through Eight of Sibley's First Amended Counterclaim. ECF No. 29. The Court will now address all of the pending Motions in this Memorandum Opinion.

         I. Factual Background

         When Sibley applied for employment with CarMax, he executed a Dispute Resolution Agreement ("DRA"). In the DRA, Sibley agreed to arbitrate any and all claims arising out of his employment at CarMax. He also received a copy of the CarMax Dispute Resolution Rules and Procedures ("DRRP"). ECF No. 29-1 at 2. Sibley began to work as a Sales Consultant at CarMax store 7206 in Montgomery County, Maryland, on or about January 24, 2011. [2] ECF No. 12 at 1. As an employee, Sibley was assigned a company e-mail address, monty_b_sibley@carmx.com. Id. at 1-2.

         Sibley formally requested arbitration on April 12, 2016, pursuant to the terms of the DRA and DRRP. He alleged that "CarMax failed to provide fair and equal access to sales leads to Sibley and other commissioned employees." Id. at 2. "[T]he Arbitration Claim alleged: (i) Breach of Promise of Fair Sales Lead Access, (ii) Breach of Maryland Public Policy of Fair Sales Lead Access and (iii) Breach of Maryland Implied Covenant of Good Faith in Employment." Id. at 2. On May 1, 2016, Sibley sent an e-mail through the CarMax corporate e-mail system to every CarMax Sales Associate. The e-mail addressed wages and working conditions. Id. Sibley asserted that he was anticipating bringing these issues up at the annual CarMax Shareholder's meeting in Richmond, Virginia scheduled for June 28, 2016. ECF No. 12 at 3.

         On May 6, 2016 CarMax terminated Sibley's employment. ECF No. 29-1, at 2. Four days later, Sibley sent a letter to CarMax stating that he would be challenging the "substance of CarMax's answer to his arbitration claim, as well as certain provisions of the DRA and DRRP, in state court." Id. He restated this intention on May 13, 2016 when he asked CarMax's attorneys in a letter if they would accept service on behalf of CarMax. Id. Three days later, CarMax brought its petition to compel arbitration. The day after this matter was initiated, May 17, 2016, Sibley signed and dated a charge against CarMax and submitted it to the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB"). Sibley asserts that this charge has been docketed with the NLRB as CarMax Auto Super Stores, Inc., Case No. 05-CA-176501.[3] ECF No. 12, at 3.

         II. Analysis

         A. Motion for Protective Order and Sanctions [ECF Nos. 6 and 17]

         In Sibley's first Motion for Protective Order and Sanctions, he requested the Court to seal Exhibit 2 to the Complaint and enter sanctions against CarMax and its attorneys. ECF No. 6, at 3. As of May 25, 2016 at 11:55 a.m., Exhibit 2 was sealed. ECF No. 11, at 1. Accordingly, there is no need for a protective order, and the Court will direct that Exhibit 2 remain under seal.

         The Court may impose sanctions upon an attorney who presents to the Court a pleading, motion or paper which was presented for an improper purpose. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 (b), (c). A cursory review of Exhibit 2 clearly shows that the disclosure of Sibley's social security number was inadvertent. The social security number was properly redacted in two other places where it seems to have been typed in the document, but the disclosure in question was handwritten under Sibley's signature on the bottom half of page 6. ECF No. 1-2, at 2. It is thus obvious that the handwritten number was overlooked by the individual (or technology) redacting the documents. Id. Additionally, Littler Mendelson has offered to pay for a two-year membership in a credit monitoring service and has assured the Court that those responsible were counseled on the importance of redaction. ECF No. 9, at 2. While the Court does not condone such an oversight, there is absolutely no basis-aside from Sibley's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.