is of no moment for claim preclusion purposes. See OCR Case Resolution and Investigation Manual § 109(i) (2005) (stating that "OCR will decline to proceed further with complaint allegations” when "[(litigation has been filed raising the same allegations”). 9 . In fact, the only claims subject to the one-year statute of limitations were Ms. Hall’s state libel and slander claims. The intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence claims were subject to the general 3-year statute of limitations. See Md.Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101. Furthermore, Ms. Hall has offered no explanation for her failure to assert her breach of contract claim in the original State Complaint. 10 . See Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U.S. 473, 478, 101 S.Ct. 2870, 69 L.Ed.2d 784 (1981) (<HOLDING>). See also De Bleecker v. Montgomery County, 48
holding that a federal court improperly dismissed suit on abstention grounds where there was no concurrent jurisdiction over the federal claims holding that a statute shall not be given retroactive effect unless such construction is required by explicit language or by necessary implication holding that federal jurisdiction over rico claims is concurrent and not exclusive recognizing a general presumption of concurrent jurisdiction by state courts over federal claims which is rebuttable by an explicit statutory directive by unmistakable implication from legislative history or by a clear incompatibility between statecourt jurisdiction and federal interests holding that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over  1983 claims