Gogel et al v. Maroulis et al
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 27 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Compaint; denying Defendant Paul A. Maroulis's 24 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 10/25/2018. (dass, Deputy Clerk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Chambers of
GEORGE L. RUSSELL, III
United States District Judge
101 West Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
410-962-4055
October 25, 2018
MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL RE:
Deborah L. Gogel, et al. v. John Maroulis, et
al.
Civil Action No. GLR-16-2695
Dear Counsel:
Pending before the Court are: (1) Plaintiffs Deborah L. Gogel, Amanda Foti, Candace Gogel,
Helen Gogel, Elena Ramos, Maria A. Uribe, Thiana Castro, Freddy Ortiz, and Joshua Castro’s
Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 27); and (2) Defendant Paula A.
Maroulis’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 24). The Motions are ripe for disposition, and no hearing is
necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md. 2016). For the reasons outlined below, the Court will grant
Plaintiffs’ Motion and deny as moot the Motion to Dismiss.
On August 5, 2013, a boating accident occurred on navigable waters off the coast of Ocean
City, Maryland. (Am. Compl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 18).1 The accident resulted in the deaths of two invited
passengers on the boat, William M. Gogel and Fredy F. Castro. (Id. ¶ 5). Paula and Defendant John
Maroulis (collectively, the “Maroulises”) “owned, operated, and had in their possession and control”
the boat, a NAUTI CAT passenger vessel.2 (Id. ¶ 2). John was operating the boat at the time of the
accident. (Id. ¶ 3).
On July 26, 2016, Plaintiffs sued John Maroulis and “Sharon Maroulis” under the Death on
the High Seas Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 30301 et seq. (2018). (ECF No. 1-1). On May 3, 2018, the Court
granted Plaintiffs leave to change the name of Defendant Sharon Maroulis to Paula A. Maroulis.
(May 2, 2018 Order, ECF No. 17).3 Plaintiffs then filed an Amended Complaint against the
Maroulises. (ECF No. 18). The two-Count Amended Complaint alleges that John Maroulis
negligently operated and controlled the boat. (Am. Compl. ¶ 4). Plaintiffs seek monetary damages.
(Id. at 4, 5).
1
Unless otherwise noted, the Court takes the following facts from Plaintiffs’ Amended
Complaint and accepts them as true. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citations
omitted).
2
The Court uses Defendants’ first names to avoid confusion.
3
Although the Court’s May 2, 2018 Order granted Plaintiffs leave to amend the name of
Defendant “Sharon Maroulis to Mary A. Maroulis,” Plaintiffs filed a corrected Amended Complaint
naming Paula as a Defendant, (Line, ECF No. 20), and served a copy on Paula, (ECF No. 29).
On June 11, 2018, Paula filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 24).4 Plaintiffs filed an
Opposition on July 12, 2018. (ECF No. 28). To date, the Court has no record that Paula filed a
Reply.
On June 27, 2018, approximately two weeks after Paula filed her Motion to Dismiss,
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 27). The
Maroulises filed an Opposition on July 12, 2018. (ECF No. 28). To date, the Court has no record
that Plaintiffs filed a Reply.
The proposed Second Amended Complaint adds allegations that Paula Maroulis knew or
should have known all passengers were required to have personal floatation devices. (2d Am.
Compl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 27-2). It further alleges that Paula was negligent by: (1) “failing to provide a
seaworthy vessel”; (2) failing to maintain properly the vessel’s condition, “including the electrical
system and electrical breakers, as well as the bilge pumps of said vessel”; (3) “failing to promulgate
and enforce reasonable rules and regulations for” wearing personal floatation devices aboard the boat
at issue; and (4) otherwise being “careless, reckless and negligent.” (Id.). The proposed Second
Amended Complaint asserts that the Maroulises’ negligence caused Gogel’s death (Count I) and
Castro’s death (Count II). (Id. ¶¶ 6, 9, 14).
There is a “federal policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits instead of disposing of
them on technicalities.” Mayfield v. Nat’l Ass’n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 379
(4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Matrix Capital Mgmt. Fund, LP v. BearingPoint, Inc., 576 F.3d 172, 193
(4th Cir. 2009)). Consonant with this policy, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that
the Court should “freely give leave” to file an amended complaint “when justice so requires.” The
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has “interpreted Rule 15(a) to provide that
‘leave to amend a pleading should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the
opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would
have been futile.’” Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Johnson v. Oroweat
Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986)).
The Maroulises submit that the requested amendment would be futile. Leave to amend
would be futile when an amended complaint could not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). See U.S. ex rel. Wilson v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 525 F.3d 370,
4
In her Motion, Paula Maroulis seeks dismissal on the ground that Plaintiffs fail to allege
wrongful conduct by her beyond merely owning the boat at issue. (Mot. Dismiss at 1, ECF No. 24).
The Motion and its supporting Memorandum refer to the “Complaint.” (See, e.g., Mot. Dismiss at 1;
Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss at 1, 4−5, ECF No. 24-1). “Normally, an amended complaint supersedes
the original complaint.” Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Commc’ns, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4
(2009). The Court, therefore, concludes that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint supersedes their
Complaint. Further, the Memorandum in support of Paula’s Motion to Dismiss references common
allegations located in the same-numbered paragraphs of both the Complaint and the Amended
Complaint. (See Mem. Support Mot. Dismiss at 1−2, 4; compare Compl. ¶¶ 2−4, ECF No. 1-1, with
Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2−4). And Paula filed her Motion to Dismiss weeks after Plaintiffs filed the
Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the Court will construe the Motion as challenging the sufficiency
of the Amended Complaint.
2
376 (4th Cir. 2008). The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is to “test the sufficiency of a
complaint,” not to “resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability
of defenses.” Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243–44 (4th Cir. 1999) (quoting
Republican Party v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992)). A complaint fails to state a claim if
it does not contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), or does not “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Though the
plaintiff is not required to forecast evidence to prove the elements of the claim, the complaint must
allege sufficient facts to establish each element. Goss v. Bank of Am., N.A., 917 F.Supp.2d 445, 449
(D.Md. 2013) (quoting Walters v. McMahen, 684 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2012)), aff’d sub nom.,
Goss v. Bank of Am., NA, 546 F.App’x 165 (4th Cir. 2013).
In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must examine the complaint as a whole,
consider the factual allegations in the complaint as true, and construe the factual allegations in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268 (1994); Lambeth v. Bd. of
Comm’rs of Davidson Cty., 407 F.3d 266, 268 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S.
232, 236 (1974)). But, the court need not accept unsupported or conclusory factual allegations
devoid of any reference to actual events, United Black Firefighters v. Hirst, 604 F.2d 844, 847 (4th
Cir. 1979), or legal conclusions couched as factual allegations, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
The Death on the High Seas Act creates a cause of action “in admiralty” for a person’s death
caused by, among other things, negligence “on the high seas beyond 3 nautical miles from the shore
of the United States.” 46 U.S.C. § 30302. “To prevail in a negligence action in admiralty, a plaintiff
must demonstrate that the boat owner breached the duty of ‘exercising reasonable care under the
circumstances’ that he [or she] owes to boat passengers.” Holesapple v. Barrett, 5 F.App’x 177, 180
(4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 632
(1959)). The pleadings need only “allege facts sufficient to support plausible claims that: (1) [t]here
was a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) [t]he duty was breached; (3) [t]he plaintiff
sustained injury; and (4) [t]here is a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the
plaintiff’s injury.” Krajcsik v. Ramsey, MJG-15-3708, 2017 WL 3868560, at *2 (D.Md. Sept. 5,
2017) (citing Vollmar v. O.C. Seacrets, Inc., 831 F.Supp.2d 862, 866 (D.Md. 2011)).
Here, the Maroulises argue that Plaintiffs’ proposed Second Amended Complaint fails to
state a claim against Paula because it does not identify specific allegations supporting her breach of a
duty. The Court disagrees. The proposed Second Amended Complaint adequately pleads a cause of
action for negligence in admiralty against Paula. Construing the factual allegations set forth above in
the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Court can reasonably infer that Paula Maroulis breached the
duty she owed to Gogel and Castro because she: (1) invited the decedents on her unseaworthy boat;
(2) knowingly disregarded the requirement that the decedents must have worn personal floatation
devices while aboard the boat; and (3) failed to maintain the boat’s electrical system and breakers
and bilge pumps in a proper condition. (See 2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5−6, 9, 14).
3
The Maroulises maintain that the proposed pleading lacks any factual explanation or
predicate supporting Paula’s alleged breach of a duty. The Court is not persuaded. The Second
Amended Complaint need only contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
[Plaintiffs are] entitled to relief” for the deaths of Gogel and Castro. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). In
light of the allegations previously discussed, the Court concludes that the proposed Second Amended
Complaint satisfies this standard.
Next, the Maroulises aver that Paula “was not present at the time of the accident” that
allegedly resulted in the deaths of Gogel and Castro. (Resp. Mot. Leave File 2d Am. Compl. at 2,
ECF No. 28). Nothing within the proposed Second Amended Complaint supports this averment.
Indeed, the Second Amended Complaint alleges “[t]hat at all times hereinafter mentioned, the
Defendants, John Maroulis and Paula A. Maroulis, . . . operated” the boat involved in the accident.
(2d Am. Compl. ¶ 2). It further alleges that “on August 5, 2013,” the date of the accident, “Paula
Maroulis . . . operated and controlled the” boat. (Id. ¶ 5). Accepting these allegations as true and
construing them in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Court can reasonably infer that Paula
was present aboard the boat when the accident occurred. The Court declines to resolve before
discovery the question of whether, as a matter of fact, she was not present during the accident.
In sum, the proposed Second Amended Complaint sufficiently states negligence claims under
the Death on the High Seas Act against Paula. The Court, therefore, concludes that allowing
Plaintiffs to amend their pleadings would not be futile. Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’
Motion. Because the Court will permit Plaintiffs to amend their Amended Complaint and Paula’s
Motion to Dismiss is directed to the Amended Complaint, the Court will deny as moot her Motion to
Dismiss.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 27) is GRANTED and Paula’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 24) is DENIED AS
MOOT. Despite the informal nature of this memorandum, it shall constitute an Order of this Court,
and the Clerk is directed to docket it accordingly.
Very truly yours,
/s/
_______________________
George L. Russell, III
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?