Amending a Complaint Does Not Circumvent a Prior Sanctions Order Barring “Claims” Evidence

In Johnson v. Sullivan, 2024 WL 4821680, at *5 (Apls. Ct. Md. Nov. 19, 2024)(unreported), the Court held that Appellants’ filing of a second amended complaint—which did not add any new claims—could not “resurrect” rights already “extinguished” by a prior sanctions order.

This was an action alleging medical malpractice.  The medical providers served discovery requests.  Receiving no responses, they moved to compel.  The unopposed motion was granted and the order cautioned the plaintiff/appellants that failure to respond could result in sanctions.

And, that is what happened.  Plaintiffs continued to fail to respond and a motion for sanctions was granted.  The circuit court order precluded plaintiffs “from supporting claims and/or introducing evidence in support of claims” that defendants breached the standard of care.  It also precluded them from introducing evidence at trial if the evidence was the subject of unanswered discovery requests.  Plaintiffs sought revision and appellate review, both of which were denied.

The medical providers moved for summary judgment. They asserted that, under the preclusion order, there was no genuine dispute of material fact and no evidence of breach of duty or proximate cause.

That is when the “plot” thickened: “Several months after the Hospital Appellees moved for summary judgment, Appellants filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint did not contain any new counts or causes of action.”  Id. at *2.

Both defendants, the hospital and physician, made summary judgment motions separately. Both were granted at different times.  One was interlocutory and the other final.

Plaintiffs filed their first revisory motion:

Seeming to misunderstand the posture of the case, Appellants argued that the filing of their second amended complaint precluded entry of summary judgment.

The first revisory motion was denied and a second one was then filed in the trial court.

Appellants asserted that because they filed a second amended complaint, the summary judgment order from April of 2023 should have related solely to the first amended complaint.

That motion was denied and the appeal followed.

Appellants contend that entry of summary judgment was in error because they filed a second amended complaint that the Hospital Appellees did not answer after the Hospital had moved for summary judgment; therefore, summary judgment could only have been entered with respect to the earlier complaint, not the second amended complaint.

Much of the decision focuses on the procedural flaws in the revisory motion.

As to the sanctions order, however, the Appeals Court wrote that, “[a]lthough an amendment may supersede an initial pleading, it does not serve to resurrect rights that have already been extinguished.”  In pertinent part, it added:

In this case, the circuit court had already ruled, that as a discovery sanction, Appellants were prohibited from presenting evidence to support their claims concerning breach of duty or proximate cause. This sanction concerned “claims,” not the version of the complaint itself. Appellants’ filing of a second amended complaint—which did not add any new claims—could not resurrect rights already extinguished by the sanctions order….  Even with a new complaint, Appellants were still prohibited from presenting evidence to prove breach of any duty or proximate cause. Regardless of the filing of the second amended complaint, Appellants would still be unable to prove their claim, and the Hospital Appellees’ request for entry of summary judgment applied equally to the first and second amended complaints. [emphasis added].

In short, there was no dispute of material fact “because the sanctions order precluded Appellants from presenting evidence” and they could not prove their claims.[1]

One question that was not presented is what would happen if an amended complaint presented a new and previously unasserted claim.  Would the prior order barring support of “claims” apply to the new one?

This is an unreported opinion. This opinion may not be cited as precedent within the rule of stare decisis. It may be cited for its persuasive value only if the citation conforms to Rule 1-104(a)(2)(B).

____

[1] The Court added that, under Md. Rule 3-341(a), “Maryland does not require a party to file a new answer when a complaint is amended.”  The response to the original pleading is treated as a response to the amended pleading.