Akinnagbe, Jumoke v. Opesanmi

*This is an unreported opinion. This opinion may not be cited as precedent within the rule
of stare decisis. It may be cited for its persuasive value only if the citation conforms to Rule
1-104(a)(2)(B).
Circuit Court for Howard County
Case No. C-13-CV-22-000349
UNREPORTED*
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF MARYLAND
No. 288
September Term, 2025
______________________________________
JUMOKE AKINNAGBE
v.
TOYIN OPESANMI, et al.
______________________________________
Tang,
Kehoe, S.
Raker, Irma S.
(Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),
JJ.
______________________________________
Opinion by Tang, J.
______________________________________
Filed: October 9, 2026

‒Unreported Opinion‒
This appeal arises from a dispute between Jumoke Akinnagbe (“Ms. Akinnagbe”),
the 	appellant, 	and 	Toyin 	Opesanmi 	(“Dr. 	Opesanmi”), 	the 	appellee, 	concerning
membership interests in a company. Ms. Akinnagbe sued Dr. Opesanmi in the Circuit
Court for Howard County. The operative complaint includes multiple plaintiffs and
defendants and asserts eight counts. A jury trial was held on five counts, none of which
resulted in a verdict in favor of Ms. Akinnagbe. The court later disposed of the three
remaining equitable claims in favor of Dr. Opesanmi and the other defendants.
On appeal, Ms. Akinnagbe, pro se, raises thirteen issues in her brief. 1 However, we
do not address the merits of any because no final judgment has been entered. Lacking
appellate jurisdiction, we must dismiss the appeal.
1 In her brief, Ms. Akinnagbe listed the following issues:
1. The Trial Court Erred by Allowing 7th (Alternate) Juror to Participate in
Jury Deliberations.
2. The Trial Court erred by Admitting Defense Exhibit (Text Messages)
Without Authentication, in Violation of Md. Rule 5-901 and Md. Rule
2-535(a) 	(b) 	(court 	may 	revise 	judgments 	for 	fraud, 	mistake, 	or
irregularity)[.]
3. The Trial Court Erred by Admitting Defense Exhibit (Stage MMCC
Application) Without Authentication, Which Contained Fraudulent and
Prejudicial Material, Including Peace Order on Page 35.
4. The Trial Court Erred by Allowing Plaintiff’s Exhibit (Fraudulent March
1, 	2020 	Operating 	Agreement) 	Into 	Evidence, 	Where 	the 	Document
Excluded Plaintiff’s Membership and Was Introduced by Plaintiff’s Own
Counsel in Collusion With Defendants.
5. The Trial Court Improperly Excluded Plaintiff Akinnagbe from the
Courtroom During Sidebar Discussions of Exhibits, Violating Her Due
Process Rights.
(continued)

–Unreported Opinion–
2
BACKGROUND
This case concerns a dispute over membership interests in Marileaves Extractions,
LLC, a cannabis processing venture. Ms. Akinnagbe and the other plaintiffs alleged that
they owned, managed, and operated the company. They sought monetary damages against
Dr. Opesanmi, accusing her of attempting to seize control and ownership of the business,
as well as against other defendants. Additionally, the plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment
and injunctive relief to confirm their positions and interests in the company.
6. The Trial Court Erred by Admitting Defense Exhibits 2-4 En Masse
Without Proper Authentication.
7. The Trial Court Permitted False Testimony by Defendants Opesanmi and
Ekeh, Constituting Fraud Upon the Court.
8. The Trial Court Erred by Allowing Defense Counsel to Misstate Maryland
Law on Fiduciary Duty to the Jury.
9. The Trial Court Erred by Failing to Instruct the Jury That Oral Agreements
Are Binding Under Maryland Law.
10. The Trial Court Engaged in Improper Ex Parte Communication With
Defense Counsel [] Regarding COMAR Regulations.
11. The Trial Court Erred by Failing to Rule on Plaintiff’s Motion to Set
Aside Verdicts and for New Trial Filed March 18, 2025, Before Rendering
Judgment on Remaining Counts.
12. The Trial Court Erred by Failing to Rule on Plaintiff’s Second Motion to
Set Aside Verdicts and for Declaratory Judgment Filed March 27, 2025,
Before Rendering Judgment on Remaining Counts.
13. The Trial Court Erred by Allowing Defendants to Repudiate Plaintiff’s
Ownership 	Despite 	Years 	of 	Acceptance 	of 	Her 	Leadership 	and
Contributions, Requiring Application of [Equitable] Estoppel and [Unjust]
Enrichment[.]

–Unreported Opinion–
3
Parties and Claims in the Operative Complaint
Ms. Akinnagbe and the other plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June
28, 2023, which became the operative complaint. It named four plaintiffs: Ms. Akinnagbe,
James Ladd, Oluwafemisayo Akinnagbe, and Damilola Akinnagbe.
The operative complaint named 16 defendants:
• 	Dr. Opesanmi;
• 	Kehinde Ekeh, Haddijatou Ogunsola, Temitope Gbolagun, Akinbiyi Opesanmi,
Grace Obebe, Francisco Ward, Hayden Gross, Omotoyo Awotunda, Denise
Vidot, Adesiji Gbade-Aladi, Moses Alade, Babatunde Ojo, Roberto Calderon
a/k/a 	Roberto 	Calderone, 	and 	Cecil 	Clarke 	(collectively, 	“Defendant
Members”); and
• 	Marileaves Extractions, LLC.
The operative complaint consisted of eight counts:
Count 	For 	By 	Against
I 	Fraud in the Inducement 	All Plaintiffs 	Dr. Opesanmi
II 	Breach of Fiduciary Duty 	All Plaintiffs Dr. Opesanmi and Defendant
Members
III 	Conversion 	All Plaintiffs Dr. Opesanmi and Defendant
Members
IV 	Fraudulent Conveyance 	All Plaintiffs Dr. Opesanmi and Defendant
Members
V 	Civil Conspiracy 	All Plaintiffs Dr. Opesanmi and Defendant
Members
VI 	Accounting 	All Plaintiffs 	All Defendants
VII 	Declaratory Judgment 	All Plaintiffs 	All Defendants
VIII
Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive
Relief
All Plaintiffs 	All Defendants
On April 26, 2024, the plaintiffs and defendant Haddijatou Ogunsola filed a
stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to all claims against this defendant. However, no
order was subsequently entered to dismiss this defendant.

–Unreported Opinion–
4
Disposition of Claims By and Against Parties During Jury Trial
A multi-day jury trial was scheduled to begin on February 10, 2025. During a pre-
trial conference in December 2024, counsel and the court discussed trial logistics. The court
ordered that Counts I through V would be decided by the jury, except for the relief sought
under Count I, which the court would decide because no monetary damages were requested
for that count. The court would decide the equitable claims under Counts VI through VIII
after the jury trial.
The court noted that several Defendant Members were unrepresented and not ready
for trial, either due to lack of proof of service or because the plaintiffs had not timely
requested orders of default. The court directed plaintiffs’ counsel to clarify whether the
plaintiffs intended to pursue claims against these defendants.
Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that the plaintiffs would proceed with Count I against
Dr. Opesanmi. Regarding Counts II through V, counsel confirmed that the plaintiffs would
move forward at trial against eight remaining defendants: Dr. Opesanmi, Kehinde Ekeh,
Francisco Ward, Hayden Gross, Omotoyo Awotunda, Denise Vidot, Moses Alade, and
Cecil Clarke. Consequently, on January 16, 2025, the court entered an order, with
agreement of counsel, dismissing six defendants: Temitope Gbolagun, Akinbiyi Opesanmi,
Grace Obebe, Adesiji Gbade-Aladi, Babatunde Ojo, and Roberto Calderon. The dismissal
was reflected in the docket entries.
On February 7, 2025, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a stipulation of dismissal as to
defendant Kehinde Ekeh. However, no order was subsequently entered to dismiss this
defendant.

–Unreported Opinion–
5
On February 10, 2025, the first day of trial, plaintiff Oluwafemisayo Akinnagbe
failed to appear. As a result, the court dismissed this plaintiff from the case. The court
entered an order to that effect and recorded the dismissal in the docket on the same day.
The court proceeded with the jury trial on Counts I through V involving the
following parties:
Count 	For 	By 	Against
I 	Fraud in the Inducement
Ms. Akinnagbe, James
Ladd, and Damilola
Akinnagbe
Dr. Opesanmi
II 	Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Ms. Akinnagbe, James
Ladd, and Damilola
Akinnagbe
Dr. Opesanmi, Francisco Ward,
Hayden Gross, Omotoyo Awotunda,
Denise Vidot, Moses Alade, and Cecil
Clarke
III 	Conversion
Ms. Akinnagbe, James
Ladd, and Damilola
Akinnagbe
Dr. Opesanmi, Francisco Ward,
Hayden Gross, Omotoyo Awotunda,
Denise Vidot, Moses Alade, and Cecil
Clarke
IV 	Fraudulent Conveyance
Ms. Akinnagbe, James
Ladd, and Damilola
Akinnagbe
Dr. Opesanmi, Francisco Ward,
Hayden Gross, Omotoyo Awotunda,
Denise Vidot, Moses Alade, and Cecil
Clarke
V 	Civil Conspiracy
Ms. Akinnagbe, James
Ladd, and Damilola
Akinnagbe
Dr. Opesanmi, Francisco Ward,
Hayden Gross, Omotoyo Awotunda,
Denise Vidot, Moses Alade, and Cecil
Clarke
On the fourth day of trial, February 14, 2025, after the remaining plaintiffs rested
their case, several defendants moved for judgment. Following arguments, the court granted
the motion in favor of all defendants on Count IV. The court also granted the motion as to
the above counts asserted by plaintiff Damilola Akinnagbe. Thus, the court proceeded with
the defense’s presentation of the case on Counts I through III and V, involving the
following parties:

–Unreported Opinion–
6
Count 	For 	By 	Against
I 	Fraud in the Inducement Ms. Akinnagbe and
James Ladd Dr. Opesanmi
II 	Breach of Fiduciary Duty Ms. Akinnagbe and
James Ladd
Dr. Opesanmi, Francisco Ward,
Hayden Gross, Omotoyo Awotunda,
Denise Vidot, Moses Alade, and Cecil
Clarke
III 	Conversion Ms. Akinnagbe and
James Ladd
Dr. Opesanmi, Francisco Ward,
Hayden Gross, Omotoyo Awotunda,
Denise Vidot, Moses Alade, and Cecil
Clarke
V 	Civil Conspiracy Ms. Akinnagbe and
James Ladd
Dr. Opesanmi, Francisco Ward,
Hayden Gross, Omotoyo Awotunda,
Denise Vidot, Moses Alade, and Cecil
Clarke
At the end of the fourth day of trial, the defense rested. Several defendants then
renewed their motion for judgment. After hearing arguments, the court granted judgment
in favor of the remaining defendants as to claims asserted by plaintiff James Ladd. It
granted the motion in favor of the defendants, except Dr. Opesanmi, as to these counts
asserted by Ms. Akinnagbe. The court granted the motion in favor of the defendants,
including Dr. Opesanmi, on Count V. The court denied the motion with respect to Ms.
Akinnagbe’s 	claims 	against 	defendant 	Dr. 	Opesanmi 	under 	Counts 	I 	through 	III.
Consequently, the court proceeded to have the jury decide Ms. Akinnagbe’s claims under
Counts I through III against Dr. Opesanmi, as follows:
Count 	For 	By 	Against
I 	Fraud in the Inducement 	Ms. Akinnagbe 	Dr. Opesanmi
II 	Breach of Fiduciary Duty 	Ms. Akinnagbe 	Dr. Opesanmi
III 	Conversion 	Ms. Akinnagbe 	Dr. Opesanmi
The jury began deliberations on February 18, 2025 and later that day returned a
verdict finding Dr. Opesanmi not liable on Counts I through III. The court stated it would

–Unreported Opinion–
7
prepare an order reflecting the rulings on the motions for judgment on February 14. The
court also indicated that it would address the equitable claims under Counts VI through
VIII later and noted that the defendants dismissed during the jury trial on Counts II through
V remained parties to Counts VI through VIII.
The same day, February 18, the court issued an order memorializing its rulings on
the motions for judgment on February 14. The order, which was entered February 20, read:
This matter having come before the Court on February 14, 2025, for a merits
hearing, wherein at the close of Plaintiff’s case in chief, and at the close of
evidence, Defendants moved for judgment pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-519
and this Court granted the motion as to certain counts on the record.
Accordingly, it is this 18th day of February, 2025, by the Circuit Court for
Howard County, Maryland,
ORDERED, that as to Count II judgment is GRANTED to all Defendants
except Defendant Toyin Opensanmi; and it is further,
ORDERED, that as to Count III judgment is GRANTED to all Defendants
except Defendant Toyin Opensanmi; and it is further,
ORDERED, that as to Count IV judgment is GRANTED to all Defendants;
and it is
ORDERED, that as to Count V judgment is GRANTED to all Defendants.
Post-Verdict Disposition of Equitable Claims
After the jury trial, Ms. Akinnagbe decided to proceed with Counts VI and VII but
chose not to pursue Count VIII. She also filed post-trial motions seeking to set aside the
verdict and amend the judgment, among other requests. The court scheduled a hearing for
April 7, 2025 to address the post-trial motions and resolve Counts VI and VII.
Following the hearing, the court entered a memorandum and order. In the order, the
court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict in favor of Dr. Opesanmi on Ms. Akinnagbe’s

–Unreported Opinion–
8
claims under Counts I through III. It dismissed Counts VI through VIII and entered
judgment in favor of “the Defendants” on those counts. In addition, the court denied Ms.
Akinnagbe’s 	post-trial 	motions. 	The 	court’s 	memorandum 	opinion 	and 	order 	were
reflected in the docket on April 7, 2025.
On April 8, 2025, Ms. Akinnagbe filed a notice of appeal. 2
DISCUSSION
This Court has jurisdiction over an appeal only when it is taken from a final
judgment or is otherwise permitted by law. See Addison v. Lochearn Nursing Home, LLC,
411 Md. 251, 273–74 (2009). A final judgment is one that “disposes of all claims against
all parties and concludes the case.” In re Donald Edwin Williams Revocable Tr., 234 Md.
App. 472, 490 (2017).
Maryland Rule 2-601(a) provides that a judgment must be set forth on a separate
document. It states in relevant part:
(1) Each judgment shall be set forth on a separate document and should
include a statement of an allowance of costs as determined in conformance
with Rule 2-603.
(2) Upon a verdict of a jury or a decision by the court allowing recovery only
of costs or a specified amount of money or denying all relief, the clerk shall
forthwith prepare, sign, and enter the judgment, unless the court orders
otherwise.
(3) Upon a verdict of a jury or a decision by the court granting other relief,
the court shall promptly review the form of the judgment presented and, if
approved, sign it, and the clerk shall forthwith enter the judgment as
approved and signed.
2 On April 29, 2025, Ms. Akinnagbe filed an amended notice of appeal which
included Francisco Ward and additional counsel to the certificate of service.

–Unreported Opinion–
9
(4) A judgment is effective only when so set forth and when entered as
provided in section (b) of this Rule. . . .
Subsection (b) of Rule 2-601 provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he clerk shall enter
a judgment by making an entry of it on the docket of the electronic case management
system used by that court along with such description of the judgment as the clerk deems
appropriate.” Md. Rule 2-601(b)(2).
Maryland Rule 2-602(a) makes clear that a judgment that does not dispose of all
claims by and against all parties is not a final judgment. Specifically, it provides:
(a) Generally. Except as provided in section (b) of this Rule, an order or
other form of decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all
of the claims in an action (whether raised by original claim, counterclaim,
cross-claim, or third-party claim), or that adjudicates less than an entire
claim, or that adjudicates the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the
parties to the action:
(1) is not a final judgment;
(2) does not terminate the action as to any of the claims or any of the
parties; and
(3) is subject to revision at any time before the entry of a judgment that
adjudicates all of the claims by and against all of the parties.
Md. Rule 2-602(e) (emphases added).
“An order that is not a final judgment is an interlocutory order and ordinarily is not
appealable[.]” Nnoli v. Nnoli, 389 Md. 315, 324 (2005). “An interlocutory order may be
appealed, however, if an immediate appeal is authorized by a statute, if it falls within the
collateral order doctrine, or if the circuit court directs the entry of a final judgment pursuant
to Maryland Rule 2-602.” Bartenfelder v. Bartenfelder, 248 Md. App. 213, 230 (2020)
(footnote omitted). None of these exceptions apply in this case.

–Unreported Opinion–
10
Maryland Rule 8-602(b)(1) provides that the appellate court “shall dismiss an appeal
if . . . the appeal is not allowed by these Rules or other law.” “Because the absence of a
final judgment may deprive a court of appellate jurisdiction, we can raise the issue of
finality on our own motion.” Zilichikhis v. Montgomery Cnty., 223 Md. App. 158, 172
(2015). Here, there is no final judgment. We explain.
A.
Plaintiffs Damilola Akinnagbe and James Ladd
The court’s February 18 order, which addresses the court’s February 14 rulings on
the motions for judgment, does not capture all aspects of those rulings. As explained, on
February 14, the court orally granted judgment in favor of the trial defendants on counts
asserted by plaintiffs Damilola Akinnagbe and James Ladd who were part of the jury
trial—Counts I through V. However, the February 18 order does not address the claims
asserted by these plaintiffs on any of these counts; its introductory section refers only to
the “Plaintiff’s” case in the singular, meaning Ms. Akinnagbe, and does not mention
plaintiffs Damilola Akinnagbe and James Ladd’s claims.
Nor does the April 7 order close this gap. While the April 7 order enters judgment
on the verdict in Dr. Opesanmi’s favor as to Ms. Akinnagbe’s claims under Counts I
through III, it does not adjudicate the claims of plaintiffs Damilola Akinnagbe and James
Ladd under these counts, nor does it address their claims under Counts IV and V.
Furthermore, no docket entry reflects any adjudication of these plaintiffs’ claims. Because
no order adjudicates all claims by all parties, there is no final judgment. See Doe v.

–Unreported Opinion–
11
Sovereign Grace Ministries, Inc., 217 Md. App. 650, 661 (2014) (order that adjudicated
claims of two out of eleven plaintiffs was not a final judgment).
B.
Defendants Haddijatou Ogunsola and Kehinde Ekeh
Separately, the court did not enter an order dismissing defendants Haddijatou
Ogunsola and Kehinde Ekeh, for whom stipulations of dismissal were filed before trial but
no court order was entered. A voluntary dismissal by stipulation is not an order of court
and therefore does not constitute a judgment. Hiob v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 440 Md.
466, 488 (2014).
Neither the February 18 order nor the April 7 order constitutes an order that
adjudicated the claims against these defendants. Although the February 18 order refers to
“all Defendants” without naming them specifically, its introductory section clearly
references the court’s rulings on the motions for judgment made during the jury trial. The
reference to “all Defendants” appears to apply only to those defendants who were tried
before the jury: Dr. Opesanmi, Francisco Ward, Hayden Gross, Omotoyo Awotunda,
Denise Vidot, Moses Alade, and Cecil Clarke; not Haddijatou Ogunsola and Kehinde Ekeh,
for whom stipulations of dismissal were filed before trial and who were understood by the
parties and the court not to be part of the jury trial.
Similarly, the April 7 order adjudicates only the jury’s verdict on Ms. Akinnagbe’s
claims against Dr. Opesanmi under Counts I through III, as well as Counts VI through VIII
in favor of “the Defendants” without naming them specifically. Although the order refers
to “the Defendants,” the court’s comment at the conclusion of the jury trial—that the

–Unreported Opinion–
12
defendants dismissed during the jury trial on Counts II through V remained parties to
Counts VI through VIII—indicates that both the parties and the court understood the
adjudication of Counts VI through VIII to apply only to the defendants who were tried
before the jury. Because the claims against defendants Haddijatou Ogunsola and Kehinde
Ekeh were not adjudicated, there is no final judgment. See Quartertime Video & Vending
Corp. v. Hanna, 321 Md. 59, 65 (1990) (order that adjudicated rights and liabilities of one
out of three defendants was “not final and remained subject to revision at any time prior to
the entry of an order adjudicating the claims of all of the parties to the action”).
Even if the February 18 and April 7 orders are broadly interpreted to include
defendants Haddijatou Ogunsola and Kehinde Ekeh, they still fail to adjudicate all claims
asserted by plaintiffs Damilola Akinnagbe and James Ladd for the reasons stated earlier.
Because final and appealable judgment has not been entered in this matter, we are without
authority to entertain this appeal. See Taha v. S. Mgmt. Corp., 367 Md. 564, 571 (2002).
Once a final judgment has been entered as to all claims and all parties, an appeal may be
noted in compliance with the Rules. 3
APPEAL DISMISSED. COSTS TO BE PAID
BY APPELLANT.
3 Ms. Akinnagbe filed two motions that are pending before this Court. On August
17, 2026, she filed a “Motion to Notify the Court of Newly Discovered Settlement and
Release Agreement, to Permit Limited Consideration of the Agreement, and for Other
Appropriate Relief.” On August 28, 2026, she filed a “Motion to Require Clarification of
the 	Status 	and 	Representation 	of 	Appellee 	Omotoyo 	Awotunde 	and 	to 	Require
Confirmation of Counsel’s Authority to Represent Him.” The appellees filed responses to
these motions on August 24 and October 2, respectively. Because we are dismissing this
appeal, we deny the motions as moot.