Patapsco Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Gurany

BISHOP, Judge. Patapsco Associates Limited Partnership (“Patapsco”) appeals from an order of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County which granted the appellees’, William Gurany and W. Gurany and Company, Inc. (referred to collectively as “Gurany”), motion to dismiss Patapsco’s complaint, with prejudice, due to Patapsco’s failure to adhere to the 30 day ²⁰² time constraints under Md. Rule 2-326(c). That rule requires in part that: “When [an] ... action transferred [from the District Court upon demand for a jury trial] is one over which the District Court does not have exclusive original jurisdiction, 1 a complaint complying with Rules 2-303 through 2-305 shall be filed within 30 days after service of the demand for a jury trial by the defendant.” Patapsco argues on appeal that: I. The circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing appellant’s claim with prejudice for failure to file a circuit court complaint within 30 days of the jury trial request.

II

The circuit court erred in not holding a hearing on appellees’ motion to dismiss. We agree with Patapsco’s position on the first issue and reverse. We do not address the second issue. FACTS Patapsco filed a District Court complaint against Gurany in which Patapsco alleged that Gurany breached a lease agreement between the parties.

Gurany responded on March 10, 1988 by filing a Rule 3-325(a)(2) demand for a jury trial. The record was subsequently transferred to the circuit court, see Rule 3-325(c), and notice of the transfer was mailed to Patapsco on March 30, 1988. Although Patapsco had 30 days from March 30, 1988 (May 2,1988) in which to file a circuit court complaint, Rule 2-326(c), Gurany moved on April 22 to dismiss the complaint for an alleged infraction of Rule 2-326(c). 2 Patapsco filed a circuit court complaint on May 5,1988 (3 days late), but the ²⁰³ circuit court judge, at a hearing on May 25, 1988, granted the motion to dismiss. I. Rule 2-326(c) does not expressly provide sanctions for the plaintiffs failure to comply with that Rule’s requirement that a complaint be filed in the circuit court within 30 days after service of the defendant’s demand for a jury trial.

Gurany argues that, given this absence of express sanctions in the Rule, the courts should analogize to Rule 2-507(c), “Dismissal for Lack of ... Prosecution,” which provides for a dismissal of an action “without prejudice” following a one year inactivity in the docket entries. We reject Gurany’s suggested approach and instead opt for the procedures recommended by the authors of the Maryland Rules Commentary, that: A complaint that is filed late is subject to a motion to strike under Rule 2-322(e). In the absence of prejudice, however, the motion will ordinarily be denied.

P. Niemeyer & L. Richards, Maryland Rules Commentary, 45-46 (Supp.1988). According to Niemeyer and Richards: When an action that is not within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the District Court is transferred to the circuit court under section (c) of this rule, the plaintiff must file a