,F;,h, l4&2"

. .1

IN TIIE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLA.ND

*
SCOTTSHIRLEY
47A3KemperStreet
Rockrrille,Maryland 20853 ',h

Plaintltr, {c

v. * 3sQbbO *V
caseNo.
ERIC I{ECKI\4AN
clo Rockville Football League
1375 Seven Locks Road, Suite 219
Potom&e,Maryland 2A854

And

ROCKVILLE FOOTBALL LEAGUE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS I
1325SevenLocksRoad,Suite2I9
20854 *
Potom &e, Maryland

I
And

CITY OF ROCKVILLE, I\4ARYLA}.ID *

Cify Cotmcil
50 Maryland Avenue
Roskville, Maryland 20850,

Defendants.

COMPLATNT
*-ail.

irr.l
Count I - Defamation
w |-d
*l

{:B
+fgc
SS; Phintitrscott Shirley,by his attomeyMary Ann Ryan,suesDefendantsEric
,&-
H {1,i}(rL.
ilj;ffit-an, City of Rockrzille,andRockville FootbatlLeague,andin supportthereof,
n - ' . i?' t J J
-]'r, :* j*.-t+:.+..
I.F:::'.F

asfollows:
Fe

{"J
fl}
US*
: Plaintitrscott Shirleyis aresidentof MontgomeryCounty,Maryland,
S\t l.

urhohasservedasvolunteerfootball coachfor the Rockville Football League.

2. DefendantEric Heckman, atall relevanttimes,wasthePresidentof

 .#:\,
f{rtt:A
.v '
--4

the Rockville Football League.

3. DefendantCity of Rockville ("City') is an incorporatedcity in the

Stateof Maryland. SaidCityparticipatesinthe Rockville Football Leagueby having its

sit in on Leaguemeetingsandin reviewing andmonitoring League

representatives

policies.

4. The Rockville Football League("League") is a programthat sponsors

Football gamesand sportstraining for schoolageyouthsin MontgomeryCounty,

Maryland.

5. On or aboutNovember18, 2009,andat timesprecedingand

thereafter,DefendantHeclcnanmadestatementsaccusingPlaintiffof beingverbally

abusive,using foul language,and actingaggressivelytowardsa volunteerplay monitor at

a Leaguefootball game. Suchconduct,if true, would be subjectto criminal penalties,

andwould reflect negativelyon the characterof Plaintiffand his fitnessto coach.

6. Plaintitradamantlydeniesand deniedthat he engagedin any such

conductor madeany suchstatements.

7. Notwithstanding,Defendant Hechnan repeatedhis remarksto

membersof the League,andto the community,and causedPlaintiffha:m in the form of

upse! distress,loss of his coachingposition, and damageto his reputationin the

community

8. DefendantHecbnan madesuchstatementswith malice and

knowledgethat suchstatementswere false,or with recklessdisregardfor the truth.

9. In the alternative,DefendantHecknan madesuchstatements

negligentlyandwith disregardfor the truth.

 ,B-",', &
!.2
..

10. At all times, Defendantactedindividually and asan

offhe League
agenVservanVrepresentative

WHEREFORE,underthis count of the complaint, Plaintiffseeks

$100,000.00in compensatorydamagesagainstDefendantsHechnan andthe Rockville

Football League,andpunitive damagesin the amountof $100,000.00againstDefendant

Fileckman.

Count II - MisrePresentation

11. Plaintiffadopts by referenceall of the avermentsof the preceding

paragraphsof his Complaintasif fully restatedherein.

12. on or aboutNovemberL8, z[AgJhe League suspendedand thus

removedPlaintifffrom his position as coach.

13. On November21,2009,a proceedingwasheld by the l,eaguewherein

Plaintiff soughtto appealhis suspension.

t4. Accordi:rgto the promulgatedRulesofthe League,Plaintiffwas to be

accordeddue processin saidproceeding.

15. Plaintiffreasonablyrelied on the Rulesasa protectionagainstunfair

accusationsandas away to assurefairness,freedomfrom unjust featmenf and

reasonablesecurityin protectinghis position asfootball coach.

16. Notwithstanding,attheproceeding,Plaintiffs elementarydue

processrights'wereviolated in that he was not providedwith notice of all ofthe charges

againsthiq he wasnot given an opportunityto confronthis accusers(asthey werenot

identified f6 him), andproceduralrules for the proceedingwere arbitraryandcapricious,

and were arbitrarily madeby Heclcnan. In addition,Plaintiffwas not permittedto

presentevidencewhich would have shownthe chargesagainsthim to be false.

17. Further,accordingto saidRulespromulgatedby the Leagoe,Plaintiff

had aright to firther appealhis removalto the City of Rockville. However,urhen

Plaintiff lodgedhis appealwith the City, it refirsedto acknowledgehis appeat'

18. At all relevanttimes,the City knew, cons*uctively andin fact, of said

Rules,asthe League'sBoard of Directorsconsistedof oneCity employeerepresentedas

the City's SportsProgramSupervisor.

19. Nonetheless,Plaintiffs dueprocessrights were ignore{ in violation of

the Rulesupon which he reasonablyreiied in acceptinghis position ascoach.

20. As a resultof DefendantsClty and League'sfailure to adhereto its

establishedRulesandtheir failrne to honorthe dueprocessrights of Plaintiff, Plaintiff

distress,upse! and
was removedfiom his position ascoach,andsufferede,lrrba:rassment

diminishedstandingin the community.

2I. Notice to the Clty hasbeenprovidedpursuantto Marylandlaw.

WHEREFORE,underthis Count of the ComplaingPlaintiffdemands

reinstatementto his position as coach,and $100,000.00in compensatorydamagesas

judgment from DefendantsRockville FootballLeagueand City of Roskville.

Count III - Violation of Due Process

22. Plaintiffadopts by referenceall of the avermentsof the preceding

paragraphsasif fully restatedherein.

23. Accordingto the Rulesof the Leagueuponwhich Plaintiffreasonably

 '."',.'..'z
fv?24

relied in accepting and working as a coach for fhe League, Plaintiffwas to be accorded

due process rights in the proceeding in which he appealedhis removal as coach.

24. However, at said proceerting,the due processrights of Plaintiffwere

ignored in that he was accusedof wrongfirl conduct for which he had not been grven prior

notice; he was not permitted to know the names of his accusersor to confront them; he

was subjected to arbitrary rules for the proceeding which had not been provided to him

before the proceeding; and, he was not perrnitted an opporfunity to present evidence

which would have shown the charges against him to be false.

25. As a result of the failure to accord Plaintiffelementary due process,his

removal ai coach was upheld, and he was subjected to a community upbraiding.

26. As a resul! Plaintiffsuffered the loss of his position, embarrassment,

upset and loss of standing in the community.

WHEREFORE, underthis Count of the Complaint, Plaintiffdemands

judgment inthe amount of $100,000.00in compensatorydamagesagainstthe Defendants

City of Rockville and the Rockville Football League.

i
Count fV - Breach of Contract

27. Plaintiffadopts by reference all of the preceding paragraphsof his

Complaint as if fully restated herein.

28. In accepting and agreeing to perform as a coach for the League,

Ptainffirelied on the representationsof the League that he would be treated fairly and

accorded due process rights should he and the League be involved in a dispute.

29. Nonetheless, when Plaintiffappealed his suspension,he was not

 t4:?o

Vf-/:;j*-?;Ei

accordedthe rights andfairnesspromisedto him despitethe fact that he performed

servicesto the Leaguefor approximatelynine years.

30. with Plaintifl he

As aresult of this breachof the League'sagreement

was denied afur appealof his suspension,his standingin the communitywas impugned,

he was deniedthe right to continuein a firlfilting communityservice,andhe was

andupset.
subjectedto humiliation, embarrassment

WHEREFORE,underthis count of the complaint Plaintiffdemands

$100,000.00in damagesfrom the RockvilleFootballLeague.

319 Main Street

Laurel, MD 24707
3 0l-72s-3800

Attomey for Scott Shirley

.'-|.'
q*J"
qEMAI{D TORJIIRY TRrAL
ts',}
**
ffi
:*-r Plaintiff demandsatrial byjrny on all cowrts of his Complaint.
"qFb
Ff,r-
.g

tE t

f\J
i.q
{h
'''Hi{r
MaryA"niRV
/-+r

'!t*t*z
319Main Street
,HF
t!'.il
Laurel,MD 24707
301-725-3800