to accept this argument, I would find that the conduct of Chimesa Harrison and George Coy was of “comparable seriousness,” thereby warranting a conclusion that they were similarly situated. See Settle v. Baltimore County, 34 F.Supp.2d 969, 992 (D.Md.1999)(quoting Moore, 754 F.2d at 1107), aff'd, 203 F.3d 822, 2000 WL 51283 (4th Cir.2000)(table); Cook, 988 F.2d at 511; Dartmouth Review, 889 F.2d at 19. 15 . Of course, the undisputed fact is that the Callwoods were not merely denied service; they were denied a meal altogether by virtue of their ejectment. 16 . When a person or party enters an eating or drinking establishment and requests to be served, a contractual relationship is most certainly established between the patron and the restauranteur. See, e.g., Bobbitt, 19 F.Supp.2d at 519 (<HOLDING>); McCaleb, 28 F.Supp.2d at 1048 (denying
holding by implication that plaintiff a brownskinned person of east indian descent had stated a proper claim under section 1981 holding that plaintiff who alleged discrimination on the basis of his mexicanamerican descent had stated a valid claim under section 1981 holding that american indian plaintiffs had appropriately pled a claim under section 1981 holding that the plaintiffs stated a claim for conspiracy because they alleged an actionable tort holding that africanamerican plaintiffs had stated a claim under section 1981 when they were forced to prepay for food ordered in restaurant