Gray v. Kern, 143 F. Supp. 3d 363

Raymond Gray was shot by Baltimore Police Officer William S. Kern during a 2013 training exercise; Plaintiffs filed suit asserting various federal and state tort and constitutional claims.
The Court granted summary judgment for Kern on several claims, leaving state-law claims (battery, assault, IIED, gross negligence, loss of consortium) against Kern.
Kern served a Rule 68 offer for $200,000 (the asserted LGTCA cap); Plaintiffs declined. The Supreme Court’s decision in Campbell‑Ewald v. Gomez precludes an unaccepted offer from mooting a case.
Kern’s second motion to dismiss asserts mootness because the City will deposit $200,000 with the Clerk (actual payment), and argues the Local Government Tort Claims Act (LGTCA) limits recoverable compensatory damages to $200,000 per individual claim.
Plaintiffs argue the LGTCA cap is unconstitutional under Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights (leaving them remediless because of a workers’ compensation lien) and that punitive damages or employee liability for malice could permit recovery above $200,000.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an unaccepted Rule 68 offer moots the case	Warren and Rule 68 should render case moot	Gomez controls: unaccepted offers do not moot	Gomez controls; unaccepted offers do not moot (Court previously denied first motion)
Whether actual payment/deposit of full recoverable amount ($200,000) moots the case	Payment may not moot if other recoverable items (punitive damages) remain	Actual deposit of full recoverable amount to Clerk moots case	Actual deposit of the full amount recoverable to the Clerk will moot the case; Court ordered deposit
Whether LGTCA $200,000 cap applies to Plaintiffs’ remaining claims	Cap is unconstitutional under MD Declaration of Rights (Article 19) because it may leave Plaintiffs remediless due to lien	LGTCA applies and limits recoverable compensatory damages to $200,000 per individual claim	LGTCA cap applies; Espina controls that cap does not violate Article 19; Court will limit recovery to $200,000
Whether malice or punitive damages allow recovery beyond $200,000	Plaintiffs: malice defined narrowly; punitive damages/employee liability could exceed cap	Defendant: summary judgment record showed no actual malice by Kern; thus cap applies	Court found no actual malice by Kern under LGTCA/public‑official immunity standards; punitive/employee liability not available to exceed cap

Warren v. Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., 676 F.3d 365 (4th Cir. 2012) (held unaccepted Rule 68 offer can moot a case under Fourth Circuit precedent)
Campbell‑Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (U.S. 2016) (Supreme Court held an unaccepted settlement offer does not moot a plaintiff’s claim)
Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67 (constitutional requirement that an actual controversy exist throughout litigation)
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (case/controversy and mootness principles apply at all stages)
Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (mootness and personal stake principles)
Espina v. Jackson, 442 Md. 311 (Maryland Court of Appeals upheld reasonableness and constitutionality of LGTCA damage cap)
Ashton v. Brown, 339 Md. 70 (discussing purpose and scope of LGTCA)
Thomas v. City of Annapolis, 113 Md. App. 440 (LGTCA applies to intentional and constitutional torts)
Board of Cty. Comm’r of St. Mary’s Cty. v. Marcas, L.L.C., 415 Md. 676 (definition of "individual claim"/cause of action under LGTCA)
Bord v. Baltimore Cty., Maryland, 220 Md. App. 529 (definition of malice in public‑official immunity context)
Johnson v. Mayor & City Council of Balt. City, 387 Md. 1 (court cannot judicially create exceptions to statutory limits)
Oaks v. Connors, 339 Md. 24 (loss of consortium is derivative of personal injury claim)