Mora et al v. Lancet Indemnity Risk Retention Group, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 93 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Paula Xinis on 7/10/2017. (aos, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CLAUDIA M. MORA et al.
Civil Action No. PX 16-960
LANCET INDEMNITY RISK RETENTION
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Pending is a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint filed by Plaintiffs
Claudia Mora, Juan C. Castillo, and the minor plaintiffs (ECF No. 93). The issues have been
fully briefed and a telephonic hearing was held on Friday, July 7, 2017. For the following
reasons, the motion is denied as moot.
On April 1, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint requesting a judgment declaring,
inter alia, that Defendant Lancet Risk Retention Group, Inc. (“Lancet”) is required to pay all
money damages that its insureds become legally obligated to pay in the event a judgment is
rendered against them in the underlying malpractice case pending before the Montgomery
County Circuit Court, Mora v. Advanced Walk-In Urgent Care, No. 407276-V (Montgomery
Cnty. Cir. Ct. filed July 24, 2015). ECF No. 6 at 8–9. On August 16, 2016, the County Circuit
Court entered a judgment against Lancet’s insureds in the amount of $1,282,048.50. Plaintiffs
have, therefore, moved to file a second amended complaint to specify that the relief they request
includes the entry of a monetary judgment up to the insured’s policy limit of $1,000,000 plus
post-judgment interest of $118,722.50. See ECF No. 93-3 at 9.
At the telephonic hearing on July 7th, the parties agreed that Plaintiffs’ failure to request
monetary relief in their first amended complaint does not preclude Plaintiffs from recovering
damages in the event that Plaintiffs prevail on the merits. The Declaratory Judgment Act and
Rule 54(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow the Court to grant monetary relief even
if no such request is made in the complaint. Specifically, the Declaratory Judgment Act permits
the court to grant “further necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgement,”
including monetary damages. 28 U.S.C. § 2202; see also Insurance Services of Beaufort, Inc. v.
Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 966 F.2d 847, 851–52 (4th Cir. 1992); Alexander & Alexander,
Inc. v. Van Impe, 787 F.2d 163, 166 (3rd Cir. 1986). Similarly, Rule 54(c) provides that a trial
court “shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the
party has not demanded that relief in its pleadings.” Thus, the Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment
has no practical effect on Plaintiffs’ case or potential for relief.
The Court is mindful that Defendant nonetheless maintains other legal challenges to the
Plaintiff’s claimed damages. However, the parties agreed during the telephonic hearing that
discussion of damages is premature unless and until the Court renders a judgment on liability.
Accordingly, it is this 10th day of July, 2017, hereby ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to
File a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 93) BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED AS
United States District Judge
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?