Scarfield v. Muntjan
119 A.3d 745
Md.2015Background
- Tenant Peter Muntjan sued landlord Frank Scarfield arising from a 2007 eviction; original circuit-court complaint alleged trover/conversion (Count I) and invasion of privacy (Count II).
- Scarfield answered Count I without requesting a jury; Count II was dismissed on statute-of-limitations grounds.
- More than 15 days after the last pleading on the original complaint, Muntjan filed an amended complaint adding Abuse of Process (Count III) and included a timely jury demand with the amended complaint.
- The trial court dismissed Count III for failure to state a claim and struck the jury demand as to the original counts; the Court of Special Appeals reversed as to the jury demand but affirmed dismissal of Count III.
- The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to decide whether a jury demand filed with an amended complaint that adds only a defective new count can revive a previously waived jury right.
- The Court held that a new count that is dismissed for failure to state a claim cannot revive a previously waived jury demand and remanded for a bench trial on Counts I and II.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an amended complaint that adds a new claim and includes a jury demand can revive a previously waived jury right when the new claim is defective | Muntjan: the amended complaint raised a new issue (Abuse of Process) and the timely jury demand with the amendment revives the waived jury right | Scarfield: an amended complaint cannot revive a waived jury demand when (1) the demand was not timely in the original pleading window and (2) the new count fails to state a claim; allowing revival would nullify Rule 2-325 | Held: No. A new count that is dismissed for failure to state a claim is insufficient to revive a previously waived jury demand under Md. Rule 2-325; remand for bench trial on the surviving counts |
Key Cases Cited
- Duckett v. Riley, 428 Md. 471 (discussion of constitutional and rule-based limits on jury right)
- Luppino v. Gray, 336 Md. 194 (an amended count that merely restates prior claims cannot revive a waived jury demand)
- State Dep’t of Econ. & Cmty. Dev. v. Attman/Glazer P.B. Co., 323 Md. 592 (an amended pleading raising only equitable issues does not revive a waived jury demand)
- Taylor v. NationsBank, N.A., 365 Md. 166 (rules should not be read so as to render provisions nugatory)
- Blandon v. State, 304 Md. 316 (avoid constructions that lead to absurd results)