COVID-19 Tolling Orders

In the Matter of the Petition of Kern Hosein, Misc. No. 24, Sept. Term, 2022 (filed Aug. 14, 2023) (per curiam), the Maryland Supreme Court recently answered the question if the 15-day extension applied to all cases whose statute of limitations and deadlines related to initiation due to the Covid-19 tolling orders expired between March 16, 2020, and April 3, 2022.

In a Nutshell

The former chief judge issued administrative orders tolling deadlines related to the initiation of matters effective March 16, 2020, and later issued a revised order terminating the tolling period effective July 20, 2020, but the revised order also extended the filing deadlines to initiate matters by an additional 15 days. In a four to three decision, the Maryland Supreme Court declared that the 15-day extension applied only to cases with deadlines that were suspended during the closure of the court clerks’ offices between March 16, 2020, and July 20, 2020.

The Case

Kern Hosein, a Baltimore City police officer, sustained an injury while responding to an emergency call. The hearing examiner denied his petition for line-of-duty disability retirement. A copy of the decision was mailed to Hosein on Dec. 22, 2021. Hosein filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on Jan. 25, 2022.

In the wake of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the former Chief Judge Barbera issued an administrative order that tolled deadlines related to the initiation of matters effective March 16, 2020. The order was later revised, which, in effect, terminated the tolling period effective as of the date the clerks’ offices reopened on July 20, 2020. The revised order also extended the filing deadlines to initiate matters by an additional 15 days.

As the respondent, the City of Baltimore argued that the petition was time-barred because it was filed after the 30-day deadline of Jan. 21, 2022. Hosein asserted that his filing was timely because the 15-day extension under the administrative tolling orders applied to all matters with filing deadlines that fell within the COVID-19 emergency period between March 16, 2020, and April 3, 2022. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that the extension had applied only to deadlines that were tolled during the closure of the clerks’ offices between March 16, 2020, and July 20, 2020.

Ruling

In the end, the Judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City was affirmed. In answer to the question posed by the Appellate Court, the 15-day extension applied only to cases with deadlines that were suspended during the closure of the court clerks’ offices between March 16, 2020, and July 20, 2020. The court stated, “We answer the certified question in the negative and hold that the fifteen-day extension applied only to cases with deadlines that were suspended during the closure of the clerks’ offices between March 16, 2020, and July 20, 2020.” Thus, the matter was properly dismissed.

 Analysis

The majority held that former Maryland Court of Appeals Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera’s order issuing a 15-day extension only applied to matters with deadlines that were suspended during the closure of the clerks’ offices between March 16, 2020, and July 20, 2020—not through the entirety of the judiciary’s emergency operations that concluded on April 3, 2022.

The court reasoned that Hosein’s exclusive focus on the Tenth Revised Administrative Order to determine the scope of the 15-day extension is misplaced. That order merely references an extension of “filing deadlines to initiate matters . . . by an additional 15 days” that had been accomplished “by previous Order.” Tenth Rev. Admin. Order at 4. By its plain terms, the Tenth Revised Administrative Order does not establish the 15-day extension, nor does it purport to alter, expand, extend, or affect that previously established 15-day extension in any way. To determine the scope of the 15-day extension, our focus should be on the orders that established it.

The Supreme Court in holding that the 15-day extension applied only to those matters with deadlines that were suspended during the closure of the clerks’ offices between March 16, 2020, and July 20, 2020, interpreted the plain language of the administrative orders tolling the statute of limitations and took into account the intent behind the orders issued by Chief  Judge  Mary  Ellen  Barbera.

The three dissenting justices disagreed with the majority opinion and opined that the correct interpretation of Chief Judge Barbera’s order should have allowed Mr. Hosein’s petition for judicial review to be accepted as timely and thus, it was an error for the Circuit Court to dismiss the case.

Written by associate Pavel Glazunov.