Bordenkecher Case Summary

Ms. Bordenkecher’s reliance upon materials outside the pleadings to argue that Plaintiffs’ claims are unsustainable demonstrate that Defendant seeks summary judgment from this Court, despite its claim to the contrary. Under the Maryland rules, when a defendant files a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and matters outside the pleadings are presented to and considered by the court, “the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 2-501.” MD. RULE 2-322(c) (emphasis added). The reason for this rule is that with a motion to dismiss the court considers only the allegations in the complaint to determine if the facts alleged by the plaintiff sufficiently state a recognized cause of action. See Worsham v. Ehrlich, 181 Md. App. 711, 722 (2008). Therefore, if a court considers materials outside the pleadings, the motion to dismiss is converted to a motion for summary judgment. D’Aoust v. Diamond, 424 Md. 549, 573 (2012). Summary judgment should only be entered “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 …show more content…
Bordenkecher (formerly Paula Bowie) (“Ms. Bordenkecher”) argues “I am not liable, because I said so.” Before even filing an answer to the complaint, Ms. Bordenkecher files a motion for summary judgment based only on her self-serving statement that she was not involved in the conduct alleged in the complaint and an affidavit from the individual that has otherwise ignored the jurisdiction of this court for over half a decade. In disposing of this motion for summary judgment, this Court must determine whether there is any genuine dispute that Ms. Bordenkecher was involved in the conduct alleged in the complaint. At this juncture, the aforementioned question must be answered in the positive, and therefore, Ms. Bordenkecher’s motion must be