eNotes: Liability – March 2025 – Maryland

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Maryland Case Summaries

The Estate of Trina L. Cunningham v. Mayor & City Counsel of Baltimore
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
No. 23-1467

Decided: February 6, 2025

Finality of judgment remains the cornerstone prerequisite to appellate jurisdiction.

Background

Decedent Trina Cunningham was an employee of the Baltimore Department of Public Works, responsible for monitoring water flow at the Patapsco Wastewater Treatment Plant (“PWWTP”). On June 3, 2019, Trina was standing on a catwalk over top of the eighteen-foot-deep chambers of wastewater. The catwalk collapsed under her feet, causing her to plunge into the chamber below, eventually drowning in wastewater.

Trina’s Estate and several family members filed suit against several Defendants. All but two of the Defendants moved to dismiss the claims against them. The District Court granted the Motions and dismissed the entire Complaint, despite the fact that two Defendants, and the claims against them, remained pending. Plaintiffs’ appealed the District Court’s Order of dismissal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the District Court’s dismissal was not a final order, ripe for appeal.

Holding

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the District Court’s Order of dismissal did not constitute a “final decision.” An Order is not “final” until it resolves all claims as to all parties. To determine whether an order is final, a court considers the substance of the underlying decision. Specifically, the court considers whether the order displays awareness of the missing claims, uses all-encompassing language to include the missing claims, or language addressing the central component of the missing claims. So long as the order includes those factors, it will be considered a final order, regardless of form. Conversely, if the order does not rule on, or even recognize the existence of missing claims, the order is not final, and the appellate court lacks jurisdiction. Here, the District Court’s Order did not consider or mention the claims against the two remaining Defendants, nor did the Order use all-encompassing language to include the missing claims. Therefore, the Court held that the District Court’s Order of dismissal was not a final order and thus deprived the Appellate Court of jurisdiction.

Questions about this case can be directed to Alex Mitchell at (443) 641-0563 or amitchell@tthlaw.com.

Delmarva Fisheries Ass’n, Inc. v. Atl. States Marine Fisheries Comm’n
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
No. 24-1388

Decided: February 4, 2025

U.S Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit holds that Plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

Background

Plaintiffs, a fisheries trade association, a professional group of charter boat captains, and two individuals filed suit against the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (the “Commission”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The Commission, comprised of three representatives per state, does not technically regulate states or individuals, but rather recommends regulations to the compacting states. However, the Federal Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act established an enforcement mechanism for Commission recommendations, which allows for the U.S. Secretaries of Commerce and Interior to impose a moratorium on striped-bass fishing in a state’s coastal waters if a state fails to implement a recommendation of the Commission.

The Commission implemented Addendum II to its striped-bass plan, limiting the customers of charter boats to keeping one striped bass per day starting in 2024. Maryland implemented stricter policies than Addendum II, which included canceling the 2024 striped-bass trophy-fishing season. Plaintiffs filed suit against the Commission, but did not file suit against Maryland. Their Complaint brought due-process and takings claims under the Federal Constitution and other related claims under the Maryland Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs sought an Order and judgment enjoining and setting aside the Commission Addendum II to its striped-bass plan. The District Court found the Plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits and denied their Motion for preliminary injunction. This appeal followed.

Holding

The Fourth Circuit vacated the District Court’s Order denying the preliminary injunction and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss. In so doing, it held Plaintiffs lacked standing. To have standing to sue, plaintiffs must have “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” As Maryland is not regulated by the Commission, Plaintiffs were required to show how enjoining the Commission’s actions would change Maryland regulations. Accordingly, Plaintiffs must show that Maryland would rescind its regulations if Addendum II were enjoined. A bare allegation would be insufficient. Plaintiffs would also have to give an explanation for the same, given that Maryland implemented stricter policies than Addendum II.

Questions about this case can be directed to Nicholas Daetwyler at (443) 641-0567 or ndaetwyler@tthlaw.com.

Modern Perfection, LLC v. Bank of America
Fourth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
No. 23-1965, Sept. Term, 2024

Decided: January 13, 2025

An agreement that contains an arbitration provision can delegate the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator.

Background

Six small businesses (“Plaintiffs”) each made two contracts with Bank of America (“Defendant”). The first set of contracts were deposit agreements that included an arbitration provision, while the second set of contracts were promissory notes that did not include an arbitration provision. In 2022, Plaintiffs sued Defendant in Federal District Court, asserting breach of contract, fraud, and other claims based on Defendant’s administration of the promissory notes. Defendant filed a Motion to compel arbitration, which the Federal District Court granted. As Plaintiffs failed to request that the Federal District Court stay the lawsuit as an alternative to dismissal, Plaintiffs’ Complaint was dismissed. The Federal District Court held that the arbitration provision contained an enforceable delegation clause that required the parties to address arbitrability before an arbitrator. Appellants filed a timely appeal.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals described this matter as a disagreement over which of the two sets of contracts determined whether this dispute was subject to arbitration. The Court of Appeals noted that it is common ground that parties can agree to arbitrate questions of arbitrability, including whether an agreement to arbitrate covers a particular controversy. Plaintiffs’ assertion, that they never agreed to arbitrate claims arising out of the promissory notes, is an argument about the scope of the arbitration provision, which falls under the delegation section of the arbitration clause within the deposit agreement. Plaintiffs failed to specifically challenge the delegation clause of each deposit agreement and, as such, the Court of Appeals found the delegation clause as controlling and refused to decide the arbitrability issue.

Holding

The Court of Appeals held that Plaintiffs had failed to properly raise this issue with the Lower Court and affirmed the Lower Court’s decision that the arbitration clauses present in the deposit agreements placed arbitrability questions before an arbitrator. Accordingly, the Lower Court’s decision was affirmed.

Questions about this case can be directed to Lucas Duty at (443) 641-0572 or lduty@tthlaw.com.