WATTS, J.

This appeal arises from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County's grant of summary judgment in favor of Montgomery County (the "County"), the Mayor and Council of Rockville ("Rockville"), the City of Gaithersburg ("Gaithersburg"), and Chevy Chase Village ("Chevy Chase"), appellees,1 against Matthew C. Baker; Thomas J. Wheatley; Aristone L. Pereira, Jr.; Johnny R. Garza; Kenneth K. Sleeman; David A. Schiller; Walter McKee; Janet Marburger; and those similarly situated, collectively referred to as appellants. The lawsuit in this matter was initiated by appellants, all of whom received speeding citations resulting from photographs taken by speed monitoring systems located in appellees' respective jurisdictions. Appellants claim that appellees violated Md. Ann.Code. Transportation Article ("T.A.") § 21-809 by entering into contracts in which contingent fees were paid to ACS State & Local Solutions Inc., ("ACS"), the contractor who allegedly operated appellees' speed monitoring systems, and as such, the fines were unlawful.

Appellants raised the following issues, which we have rephrased and reordered2 as follows:

We answer the first question in the negative and, as such, we need not address the other issues raised by appellants. We shall, therefore, affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2006, the Maryland General Assembly passed House Bill ("H.B.") 443 and enacted T.A. § 21-809, granting Montgomery County authority to place speed cameras throughout the County and impose a civil penalty not to exceed $40.00 in the event of a violation of the subtitle. T.A. § 21-809 (2006)3 provides:

(4) "Recorded image" means an image recorded by a speed monitoring system:

(5) "Speed monitoring system" means a device with one or more motor vehicle sensors producing recorded images of motor vehicles traveling at speeds at least 10 miles per hour above the posted speed limit.

(6) "Speed monitoring system operator" means an individual who operates a speed monitoring system.

(3) A speed monitoring system operator shall fill out and sign a daily set-up log for a speed monitoring system that:

(Emphasis added).

Following the enactment of T.A. § 21-809, the County's Department of Police proposed to implement a Photo Speed Enforcement Program in the County. On August 3, 2006, the County issued a Request for Proposal seeking a qualified contractor to provide for the implementation, use, and servicing of photo speed enforcement technology and services as requested by the County. The County entered into a contract with ACS. Pursuant to the contract, ACS was "compensated ... at a rate of $16.25 per paid citation or $18,000 per month for the Program, whichever is greater." The contract provided that ACS would "install and support all traffic camera equipment" and "supply an automated violation processing services solution that is capable of supporting high volume program operations."

On February 21, 2007, Rockville entered into a contract with ACS employing them to perform services in connection with a Photo Speed Enforcement Program. The Rockville contract provided that ACS would be compensated as follows: "The Contractor shall be compensated under this agreement at a rate of $16.25 per paid citation or $2,999 per month per mobile unit for the program, whichever is greater." On May 23, 2007, Gaithersburg entered into a contract with ACS employing them to perform services in connection with a Photo Speed Enforcement Program. The Gaithersburg contract provided that ACS would be compensated as follows: "The contractor shall be compensated under this Agreement at a rate of $16.25 per paid citation or $2,999.00 per month per mobile unit for the Program, as defined in the Montgomery County Contract, whichever is greater." On March 12, 2007, Chevy Chase entered into a contract with ACS employing them to perform services in connection with a Photo Speed Enforcement Program. The Chevy Chase contract provided that ACS would be compensated as follows: "The Contractor shall be compensated under this Agreement at a rate of $16.25 per paid citation or $6,000 per month for the program, whichever is greater." Each agreement between ACS and the Municipalities contained the following language: "The Contractor agrees to provide all goods and services described and be bound by the terms and conditions set forth in [the] Montgomery County Contract."

Original Complaint & Amended Complaint

On May 2, 2008, Timothy P. Leahy5 filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County seeking $20 million on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against the County, Rockville, and Chevy Chase for the alleged violation of T.A. § 21-809. In the Complaint, Leahy alleged: "Defendants violated [T.A.] § 21-809(j) by entering into a contract with ACS, Inc., which provided that the contractor's fee is contingent on the number of citations issued or paid." On May 16, 2008, Leahy filed an Amended Complaint adding Gaithersburg as a defendant. On May 21, 2008, Leahy filed a Motion to Certify Class, seeking the circuit court to allow Leahy "to represent all individuals who have received traffic citations and paid fines as a result of the contracts between any Maryland government, including, but not limited to, the City of Rockville, Montgomery County and the Town of Chevy Chase and ACS, Inc., ... for speed monitoring camera equipment at various intersections in Montgomery County[.]" In response, appellees filed motions to dismiss and/or for summary judgment and oppositions to Leahy's Motion to Certify Class.6

On August 26, 2008, the circuit court held a hearing on Leahy's Motion to Certify Class and the County's, Rockville's, and Chevy Chase's7 Motions to Dismiss and/or Motions for Summary Judgment. As a result of the hearing, the circuit court: (1) granted Gaithersburg's Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment, dismissing Leahy's claims against Gaithersburg with prejudice and without leave to amend; (2) dismissed Leahy's claims against Rockville with prejudice and without leave to amend; (3) granted the motion to dismiss as to the County with leave to amend; and (4) denied Leahy's Motion to Certify Class without prejudice to renew if a second amended complaint is filed.

Second Amended Complaint

On October 6, 2008, ten named plaintiffs, Leahy; Matthew Charles Baker; Thomas Jeffrey Wheatley; Aristone Luiz Pereira, Jr.; Michael Brody; Johnny Ray Garza; Kenneth King Sleeman; David Alfred Schiller; Walter McKee; and Janet Marburger, collectively referred to as the plaintiffs,8 filed on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, a Second Amended Complaint against appellees. In the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs brought seven claims based in tort, one count of injunctive relief and one count of declaratory judgment.9

On November 17, 2008, Gaithersburg and Chevy Chase filed a Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint or for Summary Judgment. On November 17, 2008, the County and Rockville filed an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint. On December 1, 2008, plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Gaithersburg's and Chevy Chase's Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment. On January 5, 2009, Gaithersburg and Chevy Chase filed a reply to the plaintiffs' opposition.

A hearing was held on February 12, 2009, on Gaithersburg's and Chevy Chase's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint or for Summary Judgment. On February 18, 2009, the circuit court issued a written order which denied Gaithersburg's and Chevy Chase's Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment without prejudice, permitting them to file a motion for summary judgment after completion of discovery. On March 16, 2009, Gaithersburg and Chevy Chase filed an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint.10

Motion for Class Certification & Third Amended Complaint

On July 17, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. On August 21, 2009, appellees filed oppositions.11 On October 20, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Reply in Support of their Motion for Class Certification.

On October 7, 2009, eight named plaintiffs, Baker; Wheatley; Pereira; Garza, Sleeman; Schiller; McKee; and Marburger,12 collectively referred to as appellants, filed a Third Amended Class Action Complaint on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, against appellees.13 The Third Amended Class Action Complaint included the following counts: (1) Violation of Article 19 and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights; (2) Unjust Enrichment; (3) Conversion; (4) Constructive Trust; (5) Civil Conspiracy; (6) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (7) Constructive Fraud; (8) Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief-Maryland Rule 15-501, et seq.; and (9) Declaratory Relief. On March 25, 2010, Gaithersburg and Chevy Chase filed an Answer to the Third Amended Class Action Complaint.

On January 29, 2010, the circuit court held a hearing on appellants' Motion for Class Certification and addressed whether the appellants had "demonstrated that there should be a certification of class going forward with the lawsuit that's been filed in this case." The circuit court denied appellants' class certification as to Counts 1 through 7 of the Third Amended Class Action Complaint, which are the tort claims. As to the claim for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment, the circuit court granted the Motion for Class Certification.14 On March 23, 2010, the circuit court by written order, restated the findings from the January 29, 2010, hearing— granting appellants' Motion for Class Certification as to Count 8 (injunctive relief) and Count 9 (declaratory relief) and denying the Motion as to all other counts.15

On April 1, 2010, appellants filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, asking the circuit court to find that ACS was an operator of the speed monitoring system on behalf of Montgomery County within the meaning of T.A. § 21-809, i.e. a "contractor [who] operates a speed monitoring system." Appellees filed oppositions to appellants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.16

On April 2, 2010, Gaithersburg and Chevy Chase filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint, or in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. On April 2, 2010, the County and Rockville also filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment. On April 19, 2010, appellants filed a Consolidated Opposition to appellees' Motions to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment. On May 18, 2010, Gaithersburg and Chevy Chase filed a Reply to appellants' Opposition.

On June 15, 2010, the circuit court held a hearing on appellees' Motions for Summary Judgment and appellants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, asking the circuit court to find that ACS was the operator of the speed monitoring system located in appellees' respective jurisdictions.17 On November 3, 2010, the circuit court issued a written order denying appellants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, granting appellees' Motions for Summary Judgment, and dismissing with prejudice appellants' Third Amended Class Action Complaint. In its Order, the circuit court stated its reasons for the findings, in pertinent part, as follows:

On July 13, 2010, appellants filed a Notice of Appeal. On November 19, 2010, appellants filed a Renewed Notice of Appeal appealing the rulings of the circuit court from the January 29, 2010, hearing on appellants' Motion for Class Certification; the June 15, 2010, motions hearing on appellants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and appellees' Motions to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment; and the November 3, 2010, Order entered pursuant to those hearings.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Maryland Rule 2-501(f) states that a trial court "shall enter judgment in favor of or against the moving party 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 is entered is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In reviewing a grant of summary judgment under Md. Rule 2-501(f), we review the circuit court's decision to grant a motion for summary judgment de novo. Bonfiglio v. Fitzgerald, 197 Md.App. 327, 337, 13 A.3d 812 (2011) (citations omitted). Our review is "two-fold," we determine first, whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact, and second, whether the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. In determining whether a material fact is in dispute, a trial court must give great deference to the non-moving party as well as must review the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Lipscomb v. Hess, 255 Md. 109, 118, 257 A.2d 178 (1969) (citations omitted).

DISCUSSION

I. Private Cause of Action

Appellants contend that a private cause of action exists as a remedy for citizens to enforce T.A. § 21-809(j), which provides in pertinent part, that a "contractor's fee may not be contingent on the number of citations issued or paid." Appellants argue that they have a "right to pursue tort claims against the State government to remedy illegal acts," and to petition for "equitable relief to prevent a defendant from continuing illegal or improper actions." Appellants maintain that the General Assembly has the ability to prohibit a private cause of action, but, in this case, there is no such restriction in the statute. Appellants argue that the "imposition and collection of $40 fines pursuant to the contract with ACS is State action" and violates their right to due process. Appellants contend that the fines result in economic loss, a deprivation of their property interests, and constitute a "taking of property."

Appellants argue that three factors set out by the Supreme Court in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975),18 are utilized by courts to determine whether to recognize a private cause of action. The factors include: (1) "the presence or absence of an indication of legislative intent to create a private remedy"; (2) "whether the plaintiff is one of the class for whose special benefit the statute was enacted"; and (3) "whether it is consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff." Appellants contend that the Cort factors for establishment of a private cause of action are satisfied in this case.

In contrast, appellees19 argue that no private cause of action exists under T.A. § 21-809(j). Appellees contend that "[i]n the absence of a statutory directive, [ ] Maryland courts have uniformly held that it is not appropriate to expand a statute to include remedies that were not specified." Appellees point out that when the General Assembly "expressly provides a remedy or remedies, courts should not expand the coverage of the statute to subsume other remedies." Appellees agree with appellants that the Cort factors are applicable in determining whether a private cause of action exists; however, appellees contend that the factors are not satisfied in this case.

Appellees argue that T.A. § 21-809 was enacted to benefit drivers on the highways whose safety is endangered by speeding, and was not enacted for the special benefit of individuals who exceeded the speed limits and admitted liability.20 Appellees point out that the statute's legislative history is silent as to providing for or prohibiting a private right of action, and this silence "weighs heavily" against an intent to create a private cause of action. Appellees point out that T.A. § 21-809 provides a "detailed and comprehensive remedy to contest liability for a speed camera citation."

Appellees argue that the General Assembly has demonstrated that it is fully able to explicitly include a private cause of action in those statutes in which it intends a private cause of action will lie. Under the public duty doctrine, appellees maintain that "when a statute or common law `imposes upon a public entity a duty to the public at large, and not a duty to a particular class of individuals, the duty is not one enforceable in tort.'"21

The determination of whether a private cause of action is implicit in a statute which does not expressly provide for such an action, involves an analysis of three factors. Cort, 422 U.S. at 78, 95 S.Ct. 2080. The Supreme Court explained these factors in Cort, 422 U.S. at 78, 95 S.Ct. 2080. The first factor involves determining whether the plaintiff is "`one of the class for whose []special benefit the statute was enacted[.]" Id. The second factor involves examining whether there is "any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one[.]" Id. The third factor involves determining whether it is "consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff[.]" Id.

In Erie Ins. Co. v. Chops, 322 Md. 79, 82-83, 91, 585 A.2d 232 (1991), the Court of Appeals applied the three-factor analysis in determining whether a private cause of action existed where a plaintiff sued an insurance company for negligence, alleging that the insurance company breached a duty imposed upon it by T.A. § 17-106(b) (1977 & Supp.1987).22 Pursuant to T.A. § 17-106(b), insurance companies are to immediately notify the Motor Vehicle Administration of the cancellation of a driver's automobile insurance policy. Erie, 322 Md. at 83, 585 A.2d 232.

In Erie, the Court reiterated the factors described in Cort stating that in order to determine whether a private cause of action exists, Maryland courts have analyzed three factors: (1) "the presence or absence of an indication of legislative intent to create a private remedy"; (2) "whether the plaintiff is one of the class for whose special benefit the statute was enacted"; and (3) "whether it is consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff." Id. at 90-91, 585 A.2d 232. The Court acknowledged that "more recent decisions of the Supreme Court have indicated that implication of a private right of action `is limited solely to determining whether Congress intended to create the private right of action.'" The Court nevertheless noted that earlier cases involved an analysis of all three of the factors described in Cort. Id. The Court explained that Maryland applies a "more flexible approach" than the approach suggested in Cort, stating that the Court "has not hesitated to change the common law to permit new actions or remedies where that course was appropriate." Id. at 91, 585 A.2d 232. In Erie, however, the Court found that no private cause of action existed, stating:

Id. at 91-92, 585 A.2d 232 (emphasis added).

In Sugarloaf Citizens Ass'n, Inc. v. Gudis, 78 Md.App. 550, 552-53, 560, 554 A.2d 434 (1989), aff'd on other grounds, 319 Md. 558, 573 A.2d 1325 (1990),23 we held that no private cause of action existed for a citizens association to claim that a county council vote approving a site location for a resource recovery facility near PEPCO property, violated a conflict of interest provision of the Montgomery County Public Ethics Law.24 This Court preliminarily concluded that the statute did not expressly provide for a private cause of action. Id. at 560, 554 A.2d 434. We explained that in determining whether a private cause of action exists, "[t]he primary focus in resolving such a question is the legislative intent." Id. at 556, 554 A.2d 434 (citations omitted). We stated:

In determining legislative intent, various factors are examined:

Id. at 557, 554 A.2d 434 (citation and footnote omitted). With Judge Paul E. Alpert speaking for this Court, we explained that: "Where the legislative history does not indicate any discussion whatsoever as to whether a statute gives rise to such a right, the fact that the ordinance is silent would weigh heavily against an intent by the council to create a private cause of action." Id. We qualified this by stating that the "vast differences in legislative record-keeping between Congress and a municipal or local government," made us "hesitate to place such great weight on the fact that the legislative history available to us is silent as to whether the Montgomery County Council intended to create an implied private right of action." Id. at 558, 554 A.2d 434.

We, therefore, analyzed the purpose of the statute and the express statutory remedies within the statute. Id. at 558-62, 554 A.2d 434. In examining the express statutory remedies, we explained that:

Id. at 559-60, 554 A.2d 434 (some citations omitted). Accord, Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. Anderson, 179 Md.App. 613, 630, 947 A.2d 149 (2008) ("Where the legislature has provided a remedy, the litigant must pursue that designated form of remedy, rather than to seek some alternative form to circumvent the procedures promulgated by the legislature.") (citation omitted).

In Magan v. Med. Mut. Liab. Ins. Soc'y of Md., 331 Md. 535, 538, 629 A.2d 626 (1993), the Court of Appeals determined the definition of the term "restitution" as used in Section 55A of Maryland's Insurance Code, which provided that the Insurance Commissioner may require that restitution be made when the Commissioner is imposing sanctions upon an insurer whose certificate of authority is subject to revocation or suspension because of a violation of the Insurance Code. The Court held that: "Given the choice of finding that the legislature intended to grant limited restitutory powers consistent with relief it has granted in similar cases of improper refusal or termination of coverage, or that it intended to give the Insurance Commissioner virtually unlimited power to award general and special compensatory damages, we are strongly inclined to believe that the legislature intended the former." Id. at 546, 629 A.2d 626 (footnote omitted). In support of this holding, the Court cited Erie, stating: "We have been reluctant to find an implied grant of a private cause of action, even when the further complication of delegation of authority to an administrative agency was not involved." Magan, 331 Md. at 546, n. 4, 629 A.2d 626 (citation omitted).

Returning to the instant matter, based on a plain reading of the statute, we conclude that T.A. § 21-809 does not expressly provide for a private cause of action. We must, therefore, determine whether a private cause of action is implicit in T.A. § 21-809. As such, we will address the three factors discussed in Cort and applied in Erie: (1) The presence or absence of an indication of legislative intent to create a private remedy; (2) whether the plaintiff is one of the class for whose special benefit the statute was enacted; and (3) whether it is consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff. Cort, 422 U.S. at 78, 95 S.Ct. 2080; Erie, 322 Md. at 90-91, 585 A.2d 232.

(1) Legislative Intent

As this Court explained in Sugarloaf, in determining whether a private cause of action exists, "[t]he primary focus in resolving such a question is the legislative intent." 78 Md.App. at 556, 554 A.2d 434 (citations omitted). As such, our "primary focus" is to determine the legislative intent as to a private cause of action under T.A. § 21-809. In Lockshin v. Semsker, 412 Md. 257, 274-77, 987 A.2d 18 (2010), the Court of Appeals set out the "[p]ertinent [p]rinciples of [s]ound [s]tatutory" interpretation that are applicable in this case:

(Citations omitted).

Nowhere in the plain language of T.A. § 21-809 did the General Assembly evidence an intent to create a private cause of action. The statute, by its plain language, demonstrates a clear intent on the part of the legislature to enforce the speed limits in residential areas and school zones, and expressly provides for a specific remedy—people who receive speed citations pursuant to T.A. § 21-809(c) may challenge the citation by following the process outlined in T.A. § 21-809(d)(5). T.A. § 21-809(d)(1)(x) provides that every citation issued must include information about the manner and time in which liability as alleged in the citation may be contested in the district court. If a person elects to stand trial in the district court for the alleged violation, the burden is on the County or municipality to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the person was speeding. T.A. § 21-809(e). The person may request the presence of the speed monitoring operator to testify at trial. Id. Pursuant to T.A. § 21-809(f), the district court may consider defenses such as: (1) whether the motor vehicle or the registration plates of the motor vehicle were stolen before the violation occurred and were not under the control or possession of the owner at the time of the violation; or (2) evidence that the person named in the citation was not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation. The district court may also consider "[a]ny other issues and evidence that the District Court deems pertinent." Id. (emphasis added).

House Bill ("H.B.") 443, first introduced in the General Assembly on February 1, 2005, provided for the enactment of T.A. § 21-809. H.B. 443 contained the legislative purpose of T.A. § 21-809 and made clear the legislature's intent to create a specific process by which a person may challenge a speed citation. The purpose of T.A. § 21-809 as stated in pertinent part, in H.B. 443 was for:

In discerning legislative intent a court may search "indicia, including the history of the legislation or other relevant sources intrinsic and extrinsic to the legislative process." Lockshin v. Semsker, 412 Md. 257, 276, 987 A.2d 18 (2010). In this case, as part of the legislative process, the Montgomery County Delegation of the Maryland General Assembly Transportation Committee submitted a report on January 21, 2005, recommending the enactment of H.B. 443, stating that "a significant number of speeding related deaths occur on highways where the speed limit is under 35 miles per hour, the highways on which speed monitoring systems are authorized to be placed under the bill, and that speed monitoring systems are an effective and cost effective way of trying to alleviate the situation." In support of enacting the speed camera program, Delegate Bronrott and Senator Forehand of the Montgomery County Delegation wrote a memorandum in support, stating: "This bill would provide a means to enhance enforcement of speed limits in the face of limited police resources in Montgomery County."

After H.B. 443 was introduced, numerous members of the County government and the public sent reports, letters, and gave testimony at public hearings in support of the Bill. On November 15, 2004, James W. Clarke, Vice President of the Action Committee for Transit, wrote a statement in support of H.B. 443: "The bill before you is designed to slow down speeders. Where [they have] been used in other places[,] photo radars [have] been shown to [do] just this, slow down speeders." The City of Takoma Park provided testimony at a Montgomery County Delegation Public Hearing held on November 14, 2005, supporting H.B. 443 and stated: "The safety of our pedestrians, bicyclists, bus riders and drivers is a top priority for the Takoma Park City Council. We have had too many transportation-related deaths in our community. . . . Speeding is a factor in many accidents and often occurs in the same locations." The Manager of Chevy Chase Village also testified on November 14, 2005, and stated: "The potential this technology represents would be a significant enhancement to pedestrian safety and could establish a consistent, round-the-clock, level of enforcement and traffic calming." Jacqueline Gilan, Vice President of the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, testified at the November 15, 2004, hearing that "[a]llowing the Montgomery County Police to enforce Montgomery County speed limits using photo enforcement will save taxpayer dollars, save police resources and, most importantly, save lives." On behalf of the Rockville City Council and the Mayor, Bo Ferguson testified at the November 15, 2004, hearing in support of H.B. 443, stating that "[w]e want drivers to obey our speed limits. Speed limits exist in order to protect our residents." As such, the public expressed support for T.A. § 21-809 on the basis that the statute would help reduce the amount of speed-related accidents and deaths in the County. As Gaithersburg and Chevy Chase point out, and we concur, the legislature clearly intended to promote safety by enforcing speed limits on certain highways, namely residential areas and school zones when enacting T.A. § 21-809.

As the Court explained in Sugarloaf,25 when a statute provides a particular remedy, "a court must be chary of reading others into it" and "when legislation expressly provides a remedy or remedies, courts should not expand the coverage of the statute to subsume other remedies." 78 Md.App. at 559-60, 554 A.2d 434 (citations omitted). As such, this Court should not read into T.A. § 21-809 a private cause of action when a particular remedy is already specifically expressed within the statute. "Where the legislature has provided a remedy, the litigant must pursue that designated form of remedy, rather than to seek some alternative form to circumvent the procedures promulgated by the legislature." Anderson, 179 Md.App. at 630, 947 A.2d 149 (citation omitted). As a result, appellants are entitled only to pursue the process set forth in T.A. § 21-809 as the designated form of remedy in challenging the lawfulness of the citations received—a private cause of action is not permissible.

Appellants claim that the process provided in T.A. § 21-809 to challenge a citation is merely procedural, and does not afford appellants an opportunity to "challenge the constitutional due process defects of the system, or its violation of the fundamental prohibition against contingent fees[.]" T.A. § 21-809(f)(1)(iii) specifically provides, however, that the district court may consider "[a]ny other issues and evidence that the District Court deems pertinent." (Emphasis added). Although appellants argue that it is impractical to bring an action challenging the propriety of a contingency fee in the district court, we see no other way to interpret the plain language of this provision—appellants are permitted to raise any defense in the district court regarding the legality of the citation. Appellants, therefore, had the opportunity—which they failed to exercise—to challenge in the district court the speed citations they received, presenting the argument that the contracts between appellees and ACS were unlawful.

(2) Class For Whose Special Benefit T.A. § 21-809 Was Enacted

Appellants—individuals cited for speeding—are not within the class of people for whose special benefit T.A. § 21-809 was enacted. As discussed above, when H.B. 443 was first introduced it was described as a bill that would promote highway safety and help reduce the amount of speed related accidents and deaths. T.A. § 21-809 was clearly enacted for the benefit of drivers, bus riders, pedestrians, and bicyclists on those highways whose safety is endangered by drivers who speed.

Appellants argue that they are part of a class for whom T.A. § 21-809(j) was enacted as the purpose of section (j) was to "prevent the operation of the speed monitoring systems by persons with a financial incentive to increase the number of citations issued." Appellants contend that they are part of a subgroup protected by T.A. § 21-809(j), which includes those who were given citations but were not violating the speed limit. We disagree. The second Erie factor requires an analysis of the statute as a whole and not an analysis of one specific provision or subsection. Appellants conceded at oral argument that no Maryland case has ever interpreted this factor to be applied in terms of specific provisions within a statute. Rather, Maryland case law instructs that in determining for whose special benefit a statute is enacted, a court must look at the entire statute and not specific or individual sections within the statute. Viewing the statute as a whole, it is abundantly clear that T.A. § 21-809 was enacted for the benefit of the public, and individuals who obey the speed limit, and to enforce speed limits in residential areas and in school zones.

Were we to adopt appellants' logic and find that T.A. § 21-809(j) was enacted for the benefit of those who did not speed but received citations, we would, nonetheless, conclude that appellants have removed themselves from this class by admitting liability and paying the $40 fine associated with the speed citations. We are mindful that appellants contend that they paid the fines only to avoid the extra time and cost to dispute the citation in court, and not because they were admitting liability. The plain language of T.A. § 21-809, however, is clear. T.A. § 21-809(d)(1)(xi) provides, in pertinent part that: All citations must contain "[i]nformation advising the person alleged to be liable under this section that failure to pay the civil penalty or to contest liability in a timely manner: 1. Is an admission of liability[.]" (Emphasis added). T.A. § 21-809(d)(5) provides that: "A person who receives a citation under paragraph (1) of this subsection may: (i) Pay the civil penalty, in accordance with instructions on the citation, directly to the Montgomery County Department of Finance; or (ii) Elect to stand trial in the District Court for the alleged violation." Appellants admitted liability by paying the fines associated with the citations and by failing to contest the speed citations. As a result, appellants are not members of the class that they argue for whose special benefit T.A. § 21-809(j) was enacted.

Maryland courts have consistently declined to find that a private cause of action exists where the person bringing the action is not in the class of people for whose special benefit the statute was enacted. In Hayes v. State, 183 Md.App. 742, 745, 963 A.2d 271 (2009), Hayes was accused by his ex-wife of abusing their minor daughter, and the Department of Social Services found that he was an "indicated child abuser." This finding was overturned and Hayes brought a negligence action against the Department based on its failure to conduct a "thorough investigation" as required by Md.Code, Family Law Article ("F.L.") § 5-706(a) (1984, 2006 Repl.Vol.). Hayes, 183 Md.App. at 745, 963 A.2d 271. The circuit court dismissed Hayes' complaint for failure to state a claim, finding that F.L. § 5-706(a) "does not create a legally cognizable duty" to the alleged abuser. Id. We affirmed the circuit court holding that: "The Court of Appeals has recognized a limited statutory duty on the part of DSS to investigate reports of child abuse. However, that duty runs to the children who are the subject of the reports and not to their parents." Id. at 746, 963 A.2d 271 (citation omitted).

In Willow Tree Learning Ctr., Inc. v. Prince George's County, 85 Md.App. 508, 510, 584 A.2d 157 (1991), a child was injured on a frayed rope that was part of playground equipment at a private day-care center. The parents of the child argued "that the frayed rope was a violation of applicable safety regulations, and that under Md. Regs.Code title 10, § .05.01.16 ("COMAR") and the Prince George's County Code, a duty was created on the part of the [County] to discover and report it." Id. at 513-14, 584 A.2d 157 (footnote omitted). We held that "the State [n]or the County . . . owe[s] any individual duty of care merely by the enactment of a general ordinance requiring safety inspections, nor by the fact that it undertook inspections for safety violations. The duty created by the statute and ordinance was one owed to the public generally." Id. at 515, 584 A.2d 157; see also, Muthukumarana v. Montgomery County, 370 Md. 447, 486, 805 A.2d 372 (2002) ("[A]bsent a special relationship between a 911 employee and an individual in need of emergency services, an employee does not owe such an individual a private duty in tort.").26

In this case, the plain language as well as the legislative history of T.A. § 21-809, and applicable case law support the conclusion that appellants are not within the class of people for whose special benefit T.A. § 21-809 was enacted.

(3) Consistency with the Underlying Purposes of the Legislative Scheme to Imply a Private Cause of Action

It is inconsistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply a private cause of action for appellants under T.A. § 21-809. Simply put, a finding by this Court of the existence of a private cause of action would be inconsistent with the provision in T.A. § 21-809, which details the manner in which to oppose a citation under the statute.

In sum, we conclude that none of the factors identified in Cort are satisfied under the circumstances of this case. As a result, we hold that no private cause of action exists for appellants to seek redress for an alleged violation of T.A. § 21-809(j).27 Although we review this issue de novo, we agree with the circuit court that:

As such, we conclude that the circuit court properly granted summary judgment as to all appellees on Counts 1 through 728 of appellants' Third Amended Class Action Complaint.29

As to the appeal of the circuit court's denial of injunctive and declaratory relief, we find those issues to be moot. "A moot question has been defined as one where `there is no longer an existing controversy between the parties, so that there is no longer any effective remedy which the court can provide.'" Sugarloaf, 78 Md. App. at 554, 554 A.2d 434 (citations omitted); Carroll County Ethics Comm'n v. Lennon, 119 Md.App. 49, 57, 703 A.2d 1338 (1998) ("[T]he test for mootness as whether `a case presents a controversy between the parties for which, by way of resolution, the court can fashion an effective remedy.'") Prior to the initiation of the appeal in this case, the contracts between ACS and appellees were amended. On September 4, 2008, the contract between ACS and the County was amended to include the following language: "Contractor provides vehicles and equipment, but does not operate the speed monitoring system" and "[t]he County has the sole responsibility to operate the speed monitoring system." On November 17, 2008, the contract between ACS and Rockville was amended to include the same language: "Contractor provides vehicles and equipment, but does not operate the speed monitoring system" and "[Rockville] has the sole responsibility to operate the speed monitoring system."

On February 9, 2009, the contract between ACS and Chevy Chase was amended. Pursuant to this amendment the method of compensation was changed and ACS was now to be compensated as follows: (1) $37,000 per month per fixed pole unit utilizing radar detection; (2) $16,280 per month for each can cam utilizing radar detection; (3) $37,000 per month per fixed pole unit utilizing laser detection; (4) $37,000 per month for each can cam utilizing laser detection; and (5) $37,000 per month per fixed pole and no additional charge per can cam for 4 fixed pole units utilizing laser detection and 2 laser can cams. The amendment also added the following language to the Special Terms and Conditions, Contractor's Responsibilities, Vehicles and Equipment section: "Contractor provides vehicles and equipment, but does not operate the speed monitoring system" and "[Chevy Chase] has the sole responsibility to operate the speed monitoring system."

On June 4, 2009, the contract between ACS and Gaithersburg was amended to include language that the "[c]ontractor provides vehicles and equipment, but does not operate the speed monitoring system" and "[Gaithersburg] has the sole responsibility to operate the speed monitoring system."

We are aware of appellants' insistence that the amendments to the contracts between appellees and ACS do not resolve the contention that ACS is an operator of the speed cameras. We discern, however, no basis to look beyond the plain, unambiguous language of the contracts, which specifically provides that appellees and not ACS are operators of the speed cameras in Montgomery County. Ocean Petroleum, Co. v. Yanek, 416 Md. 74, 86, 5 A.3d 683 (2010) ("We employ in Maryland an objective approach to contract interpretation, according to which, unless a contract's language is ambiguous, we give effect to that language as written without concern for the subjective intent of the parties at the time of formation." Finding no ambiguity in the contract language, "[t]his undertaking requires us to restrict our inquiry to `the four corners of the agreement,' and ascribe to the contract's language its `customary, ordinary, and accepted meaning.'") (citations omitted). Based on the amendments, we conclude that there is no longer an existing controversy between the parties, and as such, there is no longer any effective remedy which the court could provide.30

JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANTS.