Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility


Deontrae Lucas and Erica Kelly filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against Gualberto L. Diaz and Kristopher Hayes. Both of the defendants, at all times here pertinent, were members of the Baltimore City Police Department. More than three years after the plaintiffs suffered injury, they filed an amended complaint in which they added “Police Officer Fuller [badge no.] H059,” and “Police Officer Williams [badge no.] H319.” The first names of Officers Fuller and Williams were not provided in the amended complaint, nor are the names to be found anywhere else in the record of this case.

About thirteen and one-half months after the original complaint was filed, the trial judge: 1) granted summary judgment in favor of Officers Hayes and Diaz; and 2) granted a motion to strike the amended complaint filed against the four officers. Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the portion of the circuit court’s ruling in which it granted the motion to strike the amended complaint. After a hearing, that motion was denied. A timely appeal was filed by Ms. Lewis and Ms. Kelly.


The questions presented, as phrased by appellants, are:

1. Did the lower court err by dismissing Officers Fuller and Williams by granting the already dismissed Officers Hayes and Diaz’s Motion to Strike that only requested relief for Officers Hayes and Diaz and made no mention of Officers Fuller and Williams, nor discussed how those officers were prejudiced?

2. Did the lower court err by striking the Amended Complaint and dismissing the other defendants, Officers Fuller and Williams, without considering the Plaintiffs outstanding motion for leave of court to amend the complaint under Md. Rule 2-341?

Read the unreported opinion.