Doe v. Sovereign Grace Ministries, Inc.
94 A.3d 264
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- Plaintiffs (initially 3, later 11+) sued Sovereign Grace Ministries, Covenant Life Church and various individual defendants alleging childhood sexual abuse, negligent supervision, failure to report, misrepresentations, and a conspiracy to cover up abuse.
- Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on May 14, 2013 identifying plaintiffs’ birthdates; many claims were alleged to have occurred when plaintiffs were minors.
- On May 17, 2013 the circuit court heard motions to dismiss and on May 23, 2013 entered an order dismissing most plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice as time‑barred, but dismissing the claims of the two remaining plaintiffs (Jane Doe and Karen Koe) without prejudice and granting them 10 days (effectively 5 days from entry) to file a Third Amended Complaint as to certain defendants.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration within 10 days; while that motion was pending they filed a notice of appeal on June 14, 2013.
- The court denied reconsideration and entered a final judgment on August 12, 2013 (noting the case was closed because no Third Amended Complaint had been filed). No new or amended notice of appeal was filed after that final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice of appeal was timely | Notice filed June 14, 2013 (while reconsideration pending) was effective to appeal May 23 order | Notice was premature because May 23 order was not a final judgment; notice is ineffective | Notice was premature and ineffective; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether May 23, 2013 order was final and appealable | May 23 order resolved many claims; plaintiffs relied on tolling from post‑judgment motion | May 23 order was interlocutory because it granted leave to amend and left claims pending as to two plaintiffs | May 23 order was not final; only August 12 order was final |
| Whether Rule 8‑602 savings provisions save the premature notice | Rule 8‑202(c) tolling or Rule 8‑602(d)/(e) could validate the June 14 filing | Savings rules do not apply because notice was filed after entry of a nonfinal order and Rule 2‑602(b) certification was inappropriate | Savings rules do not save the appeal; June 14 notice cannot be treated as filed after final judgment |
| Whether court could have certified May 23 order under Rule 2‑602(b) | Plaintiffs argue certification appropriate to allow appeal | Defendants argue certification would produce forbidden piecemeal appeals and no hardship justified immediate appeal | Court abused discretion to certify; certifying would have been improper given quick potential resolution and no unfair hardship |
Key Cases Cited
- Biro v. Schombert, 285 Md. 290 (1979) (appellate court must dismiss sua sponte if appellate jurisdiction lacking)
- Jenkins v. Jenkins, 112 Md. App. 390 (1996) (premature notices of appeal are generally ineffective)
- Moore v. Pomory, 329 Md. 428 (1993) (dismissal with leave to amend is not a final judgment)
- Canterbury Riding Condominium v. Chesapeake Investors, Inc., 66 Md. App. 635 (1986) (limits on Rule 2‑602(b) certification; narrow discretion to avoid piecemeal appeals)
- Silbersack v. ACandS, Inc., 402 Md. 673 (2008) (Rule 2‑602(b) to be reserved for infrequent, harsh cases)
- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Gress, 378 Md. 667 (2003) (two‑step threshold for treating premature appeals under Rule 8‑602(e)(1))
- Curtiss‑Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1 (1980) (federal authority referenced on finality/harsh economic effect factor)