How To Petition for Writ of Certiorari

 How To Petition for Writ of Certiorari

I. Statement of Proceedings This petition seeks review of an unreported decision of the Appellate Court of Maryland affirming dismissal with prejudice of Petitioner’s civil complaint and denial of leave to amend. The Appellate Court issued its opinion on January 2, 2026, denied reconsideration on January 16, 2026, and issued its mandate on January 16, 2026. 

The case originated in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Case No. C-03-CV-24- 001408, as a civil action asserting claims for wrongful termination and abuse of process. 

The case arises from dismissal of those claims at the pleading stage and presents questions concerning the proper application of Maryland’s pleading, amendment, and procedural-disposition rules. Petitioner filed a civil action asserting legally cognizable claims under Maryland’s notice-pleading standards and sought relief available under Maryland law. 

The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, concluding that amendment would be futile. In reaching that conclusion, the court relied on considerations including the asserted absence of evidentiary support for the claims, anticipated litigation expense, ordinary procedural delay, and the number of prior amendments. The court did not identify any pleading deficiency that was legally incurable, nor did it apply the Petition for Writ of Certiorari 2 standards governing amendment under Maryland Rule 2-341. Instead, the court’s reasoning effectively assessed evidentiary sufficiency and claim viability without notice, discovery, or compliance with the procedures governing summary disposition under Maryland Rule 2-501. On appeal, the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the dismissal. Its opinion did not address whether the futility determination complied with the standards governing amendment, nor did it reconcile the trial court’s evidentiary reasoning with the procedural safeguards required for summary disposition. The court further relied, in part, on the asserted availability of statutory remedies not raised by the appellees and not subjected to adversarial briefing. 

As a result, Petitioner’s action was terminated with prejudice at the pleading stage based on an evaluation of evidentiary sufficiency conducted outside the framework of either Rule 2-341 or Rule 2-501. 

II. Questions Presented 1. Whether Rule 2-341 permits a court to deny leave to amend and dismiss a noticepleaded civil action with prejudice on the ground of “futility” at the pleading stage, absent a determination that the asserted deficiencies are legally incurable under the standards governing amendment. 

2. Whether an appellate court may affirm dismissal on legal grounds not raised by the appellees and not subjected to adversarial briefing.

III. Reasons for Granting the Writ A. The Appellate Court’s Opinion Misapprehends Maryland Law Governing Pleading-Stage Dismissals, Amendment, and the Meaning of “Futility.” This case presents a recurring and consequential procedural issue concerning the proper application of Maryland’s liberal pleading and amendment standards. 

The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed dismissal with prejudice on the ground of “futility,” despite Petitioner’s preserved showing that the asserted pleading deficiencies were legally Petition for Writ of Certiorari 3 curable and despite reliance on considerations—such as evidentiary absence, anticipated litigation expense, and delay—that are extraneous to Maryland Rule 2-341. Under settled Maryland law, “futility” is a term of art that applies only where a proposed amendment would fail as a matter of law even if the additional factual allegations were assumed to be true.

 It does not encompass the perceived strength of the evidence, the cost or burden of litigation, the absence of proof at the pleading stage or the number of amendments previously granted. By affirming dismissal on grounds that conflate pleading sufficiency with evidentiary merit, the opinion effectively transforms discretionary amendment practice into a categorical bar, contrary to long-standing precedent favoring resolution on the merits. Clarification by this Court is warranted to ensure uniform application of Rule 2-341 and to prevent premature foreclosure of claims at the pleading stage through misapplication of “futility” and related concepts. 

B. The Opinion Reflects a Procedural Drift Toward Merits Adjudication Without the Safeguards Required by Maryland Rule 2-501. The procedural misapprehension is compounded by the manner in which the lower courts—and the appellate court on review—resolved certain claims through reasoning that effectively adjudicated evidentiary sufficiency without notice, discovery, or compliance with Maryland Rule 2-501. When a court evaluates the adequacy of proof, weighs allegations against perceived evidentiary gaps, or resolves questions of intent or bad faith, it crosses the line from pleading sufficiency into merits adjudication. Maryland law requires that such determinations be made, if at all, only after the procedural safeguards attendant to summary judgment are satisfied. Reliance on those determinations to deny leave to amend as “futile” compounds the error by using an improper merits resolution to foreclose further pleading. 

Petition for Writ of Certiorari 

4 This case illustrates the need for guidance on when Rule 2-501 is triggered in substance, regardless of how a motion is styled, and whether courts may rely on such premature adjudications to deny amendment at the pleading stage. 

C. The Issues Presented Have Broad Importance for Civil Practice in Maryland. Although the opinion below is unreported, the procedural approach it reflects prevented merits consideration of legal questions arising from authority exercised during a declared emergency—questions that, as acknowledged on the record below, were understood to have ‘wide-sweeping effect,’ highlighting the need for clarity regarding the proper application of Maryland’s pleading, amendment, and summary-disposition rules. If left uncorrected, the approach reflected in the opinion risks encouraging dismissal with prejudice at the earliest stages of litigation based on perceived merits, anticipated cost, or evidentiary absence—outcomes inconsistent with Maryland’s preference for adjudication on a developed record. The issue is therefore of importance beyond the immediate parties. 

D. Review Is Necessary to Maintain Consistency and Predictability in Maryland Civil Procedure. This Court’s intervention is warranted to reaffirm that pleading standards remain liberal, amendment should be freely permitted where defects are curable, “futility” retains its narrow legal meaning, and evidentiary sufficiency may not be adjudicated without compliance with Rule 2-501. 

The petition presents an appropriate vehicle for resolving these issues and for providing guidance that will promote consistency, fairness, and predictability in Maryland civil practice. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court grant the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Petition for Writ of Certiorari 

5 CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT I certify that this document contains 1032words, excluding the caption, signature block, and this certification, in compliance with Maryland Rule 8-303(b)(1).