Hansen v. City of Laurel, 420 Md. 670

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals held that compliance with the Local Government Tort Claims Act notice requirement is a condition precedent to maintaining an action against a local government. The court further held that a plaintiff must affirmatively plead, at least generally, satisfaction of that condition precedent. Because Hansen failed to plead compliance in his complaint, the court affirmed dismissal without reaching whether his notice to the City Administrator strictly or substantially complied with the statute.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff pursuing an action subject to the LGTCA must affirmatively plead, at least generally, satisfaction of the LGTCA pre-suit notice requirement because that requirement is a procedural condition precedent to maintaining the action.
2. The court need not and should not decide whether Hansen's notice to the City Administrator strictly or substantially complied with the LGTCA because Hansen failed first to plead satisfaction of the notice condition precedent.
3. Hansen's extrinsic documents and factual assertions in opposition to the motion to dismiss did not cure the failure to plead LGTCA compliance in the complaint, particularly because he did not amend the complaint or seek leave to amend.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a plaintiff asserting a claim subject to the Local Government Tort Claims Act must plead in the complaint that the LGTCA notice condition precedent was satisfied.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals should decide whether Hansen's notice to the City Administrator strictly or substantially complied with the LGTCA.
3. Whether dismissal was proper where Hansen presented extrinsic notice documents in opposition to the motion to dismiss but did not amend his complaint or seek leave to amend.

Disposition

affirmed