Doe v. Sovereign Grace Ministries, Inc.

EYLER, DEBORAH S., J. In this multi-party case, the notice of appeal was filed prematurely and is not effective. When an effective notice of appeal could have been filed, it was not. None of the appellate rule “savings clauses” apply. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed as not permitted by law.

See Biro v. Schombert, 285 Md. 290, 293 , 402 A.2d 71 (1979) (appellate court must dismiss appeal sua sponte if it determines that appellate jurisdiction is lacking). In October 2012, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, three plaintiffs, Jane Doe, 1 Renee Palmer Gamby ⁶⁵⁶ (then using a pseudonym), and Dara Sutherland (then using a pseudonym), filed suit against Sovereign Grace Ministries, Inc. (“SGM”); five individuals affiliated with Covenant Life Church (“CLC”) in Maryland: Charles Mahaney, Lawrence Tomczak, John Loftness, Guy Ricucci, and Grant Layman (collectively “the Maryland Defendants”); and three individuals affiliated with Sovereign Grace Church of Fairfax (“the Fairfax Church”) in Virginia: David Hinders, Louis Gallo, and Frank Ecelbarger. Four months later, in January 2013, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) that added five new plaintiffs: Heather Thompson Bryant (then using a pseudonym), Carla Coe, Grace Goe, Karen Koe, and Karl Koe. 2 The FAC also added five more defendants: CLC, the Fairfax Church, the Covenant Life School, Inc. (“the School”), and two individuals affiliated with the Fairfax Church: Mark Mullery and Vince Hinders. (We shall refer to the individual defendants affiliated with the Fairfax Church as “the Virginia Defendants.”) The next month the defendants filed motions to dismiss the FAC on numerous bases, including that most of the claims were time-barred.

They complained that several of the plaintiffs were not revealing their ages to prevent the defendants from determining whether their claims were time-barred. The Virginia Defendants and the Fairfax Church argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. The court scheduled a hearing on the motions to dismiss for May 17, 2013. Three days before the hearing, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”).

The SAC added three more plaintiffs—James Roberts, Jessica Roberts-Thomas, and Donna Doe—and listed the months and years of birth for all eleven plaintiffs. 3 The dates of birth revealed that, when the ⁶⁵⁷ complaint was filed in October 2012, the plaintiffs were between the ages of 17 and 38. The two youngest plaintiffs were Jane Doe, then age 17, and Karen Koe, then age 18. In the SAC, the plaintiffs alleged that each of them (with one exception not relevant to our discussion) had been sexually molested and, in some cases, physically abused by either an individual defendant, an employee of a defendant, or a parishioner of one of the defendant churches. The abuse had been perpetrated when the plaintiffs were minors, although there were allegations that for some plaintiffs the abuse continued after they reached the age of majority.

The plaintiffs alleged that the abuse had been reported to the defendants, but that the defendants negligently failed to report the abuse to the police or to any other “secular authorities”; negligently retained employees known to have abused children and allowed them to supervise children; made intentional misrepresentations about the abuse to other parishioners and to the police; and engaged in a conspiracy to cover up the abuse and to discourage the plaintiffs and their families from reporting the abuse to “secular authorities.” Simultaneous with the filing of the SAC, the plaintiffs filed a supplemental memorandum of law addressing the statute of limitations issues. They argued that their causes of action did not accrue until August 2011 because that is when they first discovered, by reading a blog, that the defendants had engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. The hearing on the motions to dismiss the FAC went forward on May 17, 2013. With the consent of the parties, the arguments addressed the allegations of the newly operative SAC.

The defendants conceded that the claims brought by Jane Doe and Karen Koe were not time-barred. The defendants argued that the claims of the remaining nine plaintiffs were time-barred and that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Fairfax Church and the Virginia Defendants affiliated with it. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ruled from the bench. It granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice on ⁶⁵⁸ statute of limitations grounds on the claims of all the plaintiffs except Jane Doe and Karen Koe.

Because Jane Doe and Karen Koe both were residents of Virginia and had alleged tortious conduct occurring in Virginia, perpetrated by the Fairfax Church and the Virginia Defendants, the circuit court dismissed without prejudice all claims against those defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction but ordered that the claims against those defendants could not be re-filed in Maryland. (In other words, those claims could be re-filed, but only in Virginia.) The court dismissed with prejudice all claims against the School for failure to sue the proper corporate entity. 4 Finally, the court dismissed Jane Doe and Karen Koe’s claims against SGM, CLC, and the Maryland Defendants without prejudice, stating that they had ten days leave to file an amended complaint against those defendants. On May 23, 2013, the court entered an order consistent with and memorializing its oral ruling. Regarding the claims of Jane Doe and Karen Koe, the order stated: ORDERED, that with respect to the two remaining Plaintiffs, Karen Koe and Jane Doe, the [SAC] be and the same hereby is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, such that the two remaining Plaintiffs shall have ten (10) days from the Court’s Ruling of May 17, 2013 (i.e., until May 28, 2013, because May 27, 2013 is a holiday) to file a Third Amended Complaint only as to the remaining Defendants: [SGM]; [CLC]; [Mahany]; [] Ricucci; [] Loftness; [ ] Layman; and [ ] Tomczak; and it is further ORDERED, that the Third Amended Complaint shall not include any additional Plaintiffs or Defendants and shall set forth with specificity the alleged acts of the remaining Defendants as to the two remaining Plaintiffs; and it is further ⁶⁵⁹ ORDERED, that all discovery in this matter, as to the remaining Plaintiffs and remaining Defendants, be stayed pending the Court’s ruling on any motions to dismiss that remaining Defendants anticipate they will file in response to the Third Amended Complaint of the two remaining Plaintiffs.

As the Current Scheduling Order provides for a written discovery deadline of May 28, 2013, that deadline shall be extended to a date to be determined by the Court with input of counsel for all parties, assuming it is necessary to go forward with discovery after a ruling on the anticipated motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. (Italicized emphasis added.) Six days later, on May 29, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the May 23, 2013 order, arguing once again that the conspiracy claims against SGM, CLC, and the Maryland Defendants did not accrue until August 2011, and for that reason were not time-barred. The plaintiffs also argued that the court had erred in not applying the seven-year statute of limitations for “action[s] for damages arising out of an alleged incident or incidents of sexual abuse that occurred while the victim was a minor,” which would have made the claims of three of the plaintiffs timely. See Md.Code (1973, 2013 RepLVol.), § 5-117 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”).

On June 14, 2013, while the motion for reconsideration remained pending, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The notice of appeal purported to apply to all the plaintiffs, but the appellants do not challenge the adverse rulings on personal jurisdiction or the dismissal of the School. Accordingly, SGM, CLC, and the Maryland Defendants are the appellees in this Court. 5 ⁶⁶⁰ On August 8, 2013, the judge who presided over the motions hearing and issued the May 23, 2013 order issued an order denying the motion for reconsideration. The judge handwrote on the order: “Plaintiffs having failed to file a Third Amended Complaint, this matter is now CLOSED.” The order was entered on August 12, 2013.

Nothing further was filed in the case. Appellate jurisdiction in Maryland is a “creature of statute.” Kurstin v. Bromberg Rosenthal, LLP, 191 Md.App. 124, 131 , 990 A.2d 594 (2010), aff'd, 420 Md. 466 , 24 A.3d 88 (2011). See, e.g., Dvorak v. Anne Arundel County Ethics Comm’n, 400 Md. 446, 450 , 929 A.2d 185 (2007). CJP section 12-301 provides that (with an exception that does not apply here) “a party may appeal from a final judgment entered in a civil or criminal case by a circuit court.” A “final judgment” is a judgment that “disposes of all claims against all parties and concludes the ease.” Miller & Smith at Quercus, LLC v. Casey PMN, LLC, 412 Md. 230, 241 , 987 A.2d 1 (2010).

Rule 2-602(a) makes plain that a judgment that does not dispose of all claims by and against all parties is not a final judgment: (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. ⁶⁶¹ (Subsection (b), which we shall discuss infra, allows the circuit court in rare circumstances to certify a non-final judgment for appeal.) This Court has jurisdiction over an appeal when the appeal is taken from a final judgment or is otherwise permitted by law, and a timely notice of appeal was filed. See Shofer v. Stuart Hack Co., 107 Md.App. 585, 592 , 669 A.2d 201 (1996) (“Generally, Maryland appellate courts cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a case on appeal unless that case is the product of a final judgment from a lower court.”). 6 For a notice of appeal to be timely, it must be filed “within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order from which the appeal is taken.” Md. Rule 8-202(a). The May 23, 2013 order in this case was not a final judgment because it did not adjudicate all the claims of all the parties to the action.

It adjudicated the claims of nine plaintiffs against seven defendants. 7 It did not adjudicate the claims of Jane Doe and Karen Koe against the other seven defendants. The May 23, 2013 order dismissed the claims of Jane Doe and Karen Koe without prejudice, granting them leave to amend their complaint against those defendants. Although an order dismissing all of the claims against all of the defendants with or without prejudice ordinarily is a final judgment, an order dismissing claims without prejudice and granting leave to file an amended complaint is not a final judgment, and therefore is not appealable. Moore v. Pomory, 329 Md. 428, 431 , 620 A.2d 323 (1993); Makovi v. Sherwin ⁶⁶² Williams, 311 Md. 278, 281, 533 A.2d 1303 (1987) (“express provision” allowing amendment of pleading shows that order not intended to finally dispose of case and thus is not final); Mohiuddin v. Doctors Billing & Mgmt.

Solutions, Inc., 196 Md.App. 439, 453 , 9 A.3d 859 (2010) (“If the dismissal order expressly grants ‘leave to amend,’ there is no final judgment and the case is not closed.”). “Where leave to amend is expressly granted in an order, the case remains pending in the trial court, whether or not an amended complaint is filed, until another order is entered disposing of the case.” Moore, 329 Md. at 431 , 620 A.2d 323 ; see also Mohiuddin, 196 Md.App. at 453 , 9 A.3d 859 ; Md. Rule 2-322(c) (“If leave to amend is granted and the plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the time prescribed, the court, on motion, may enter an order dismissing the action.”). The circuit court’s August 12, 2013 order denying the motion to reconsider the May 23, 2013 order and stating that the case is “closed” because the plaintiffs did not file a third amended complaint finally adjudicated the claims by Jane Doe and Karen Koe against the seven remaining defendants. At that time all the claims by and against all the parties were adjudicated. That order, and only that order, was a final judgment in this case.

As noted, the appellants filed a notice of appeal on June 14, 2013, almost two months before the final judgment was entered. Also as noted, after the court entered the August 12, 2013 final judgment, no new notice of appeal or amended notice of appeal was filed. The only notice of appeal filed in this case, on June 14, 2013, was filed prematurely, before the entry of a final judgment. “Premature notices of appeal are generally of no force and effect.” Jenkins v. Jenkins, 112 Md.App. 390, 408 , 685 A.2d 817 (1996), superseded by rule as stated in Bussell v. Bussell, 194 Md.App. 137, 152-54 , 3 A.3d 480 (2010). This is so because a premature appeal is a “jurisdictional defect.” 112 Md.App. at 408 , 685 A.2d 817 .

Like many states, Maryland, by rule, “legitimates” premature appeals in some circum ⁶⁶³ stances. Such a savings rule does not provide an exception to the final judgment rule. Rather, it permits an appellate court, “through application of a legal fiction, to treat the [notice of appeal] as if timely filed after a final judgment.” Id. at 410 , 685 A.2d 817 . The Maryland Rules that can be invoked to save premature appeals do not apply to the procedural scenario in this case.

Under Rule 8—602(d), A notice of appeal filed after the announcement or signing by the trial court of a ruling, decision, order, or judgment but before entry of the ruling, decision, order, or judgment on the docket shall be