Potomac Riverkeeper, Inc. et al v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 28 Motion Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. Inova is directed to file an Answer to the remaining allegations in the First Amended Complaint within 14 days of this Order. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 6/1/2016. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

JOSEPH CRUSSIAH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. TDC-14-4017

!NOVA HEALTH SYSTEM,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Joseph Crussiah's Motion for Leave to File a Second
Amended Complaint.

The Motion is fully briefed and ripe for disposition.

No hearing is

necessary to resolve the issues. See D. Md. Local R. 105.6. For the reasons set forth below, the
Motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On November
Amended Complaint.

19, 2015, the Court dismissed Counts 1-7 and 10-13 of Crussiah's
The Court allowed Crussiah to seek leave to amend his claims for fraud

(Count 1) and civil conspiracy (Counts 10 and 11) to correct the deficiencies with those claims
identified in the Court's Memorandum

Opinion.

On December 10, 2015, Crussiah filed a

Motion for Second Amended Complaint, attaching clean and redlined versions of a proposed
Second Amended

Complaint.

("Inova") filed a memorandum

On December

28, 2015, Defendant

in opposition to Crussiah's

Crussiah submitted a reply memorandum.

Motion.

Inova Health System
On January 14, 2016,

Because the pending Motion was filed more than 21 days after service of Inova Health
System's Motion to Dismiss, the Court will grant leave to amend "when justice so requires."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

"A motion to amend 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 be futile.'"

HCMF Corp. v. Allen, 238 F.3d 273, 276 (4th Cir.

2001) (quoting Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 242 (4th Cir.1999».

Inova

contends that allowing Crussiah's proposed amendments would be futile because the amended
allegations of fraud and civil conspiracy still fail to state plausible claims for relief.
DISCUSSION
I.

Fraud (Count 1)
Crussiah's

First Amended Complaint alleged that Inova had engaged in fraud when

Crussiah's physician, Dr. Sonalee Kulkarni, deleted records of an MR! that Crussiah received at
Capital Imaging in Bethesda, Maryland.

Crussiah claimed that a technician at Capital Imaging

had botched the MR! and that Kulkarni was attempting to cover up that fact. The Court found
that Crussiah failed to state a claim for fraud because the First Amended Complaint did not plead
facts sufficient to show that he relied upon Kulkarni's statements or omissions.
Crussiah's proposed Second Amendment Complaint claims that Kulkarni attempted to
cover up the failed MRI at the behest of her boss, Dr. John Cochran, who-for
unknown-was

reasons

assisting Dr. Jeff Jacobson, the owner of Capital Imaging. Crussiah also Claims

that Kulkarni's cover up prevented him from pursuing a malpractice case related to the botched
MR!.

In addition, Crussiah alleges that, after the MR!, Kulkarni falsely diagnosed him with

migraines and then prescribed him medication, which caused him harm.

2

Crussiah's proposed Second Amended Complaint does not cure the defect identified in
the Court's Memorandum Opinion. Crussiah still does not plead facts sufficient to show that he
relied upon Kulkarni's alleged false statements and omissions.

Crussiah knew that the MRI had

occurred, so Kulkarni's deletion of the MRI from his file did not deceive him.

Crussiah also

professes knowledge of the tortious and perhaps criminal conduct of Capital Imaging's

MRI

technician, and he does not adequately articulate how Kulkarni's actions deceived him to the
point that he was prevented from seeking legal or medical redress.
regarding Kulkarni's

Crussiah's

allegations

allegedly false diagnosis for migraines also fall short of the heightened

pleading standard for fraud under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) because they do not
indicate the benefit Kulkarni gained from this deception.

See Harrison

v. Westinghouse

Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 784 (4th Cir. 1999) (stating that Rule 9(b) requires a plaintiff
alleging fraud to identify what the person making the misrepresentation

obtained from it).

Consequently, the Court finds that it would be futile to grant Crussiah leave to amend his claim
for fraud.

II.

Civil Conspiracy (Counts 10 & 11)
Crussiah's First Amended Complaint alleged that Inova engaged in civil conspiracy by

convening a "death panel" regarding his treatment.

The Court dismissed the claim because

Crussiah failed to describe the unlawful activity of the "death panel."
Crussiah's proposed Second Amended Complaint does not add any material facts to the
"death panel" allegation. Instead, it alleges new theories of civil conspiracy based on the alleged
cover-up by Kulkarni and Cochran of the failed MRI. These proposed amendments go beyond
the scope of the deficiencies identified in the Court's Memorandum Opinion. Even if the Court
were to consider the amendments, it would deny them as futile. Because the unlawful conduct

3

that forms the basis for Crussiah's new civil conspiracy claim is the alleged fraud by Kulkarni
and Cochran, which, for the reasons stated above, the Court dismisses as inadequately pleaded,
Crussiah has also failed to state a plausible civil conspiracy claim. See Hoffman v. Stamper, 867
A.2d 276, 290 (Md. 2005) (stating that civil conspiracy is not a separate tort "capable of
independently

sustaining an award of damages in the absence of other tortious injury to the

plaintiff') (internal quotation marks omitted).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Motion Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint,
ECF No. 28, is DENIED. Inova is directed to file an Answer to the remaining allegations in the
First Amended Complaint within 14 days of this Order.

Date: June 1,2016
THEODORE D. CH
United States District

4