Opinion ID: 2318562
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Stay or Go?

Text: Lastly, we consider whether the Circuit Court should relinquish jurisdiction by dismissing Carter's complaint or stay this case pending the outcome of any administrative proceeding. In Arroyo v. Board of Education of Howard County, 381 Md. 646, 650 n. 5, 851 A.2d 576, 579 n. 5 (2004), we reviewed a series of cases involving primary jurisdiction and indicated ultimately that the primary jurisdiction of an agency ... does not actually prohibit the filing of an independent judicial action, only its adjudication prior to the exhaustion of the administration remedy. See also Converge Servs. Group, 383 Md. at 480, 860 A.2d at 881 ([T]he court may stay its consideration of the invoked judicial remedy and await the result of the administrative proceedings before addressing the appropriateness of the relief sought in the litigation. (citations omitted)); Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm'n v. Crawford, 307 Md. 1, 18, 511 A.2d 1079, 1087-88 (1986) ([I]n situations like that in the present case ... where the administrative agency may have primary jurisdiction, and where the plaintiff invokes the judicial remedy prior to exhausting the administrative procedures, it has been held that the trial court may retain jurisdiction pending exhaustion of the administrative procedures. (citations omitted)). Therefore, we conclude that, although Carter did not file an administrative complaint, he was not foreclosed from filing the present judicial action, only that he could not pursue it to a conclusion at this time. The Circuit Court should stay further proceedings regarding the judicial complaint until the outcome of the administrative adjudication. If Carter neglects to pursue administrative relief within a reasonable time, then his judicial claim may not progress and, in all likelihood, would be dismissed. See Maryland Rule 2-507 (authorizing dismissal for lack of prosecution). JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY VACATED. CASE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO STAY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT. BELL, C.J., and ADKINS, J., Dissent. ADKINS, J., dissenting, in which BELL, C.J., joins. When a plaintiff seeking a remedy under the Insurance Code also asserts a cause of action in negligent misrepresentation, the administrative remedy is concurrent with the judicial remedy. See Zappone v. Liberty Life Ins. Co., 349 Md. 45, 66-68, 706 A.2d 1060, 1071 (1998). Here, Carter successfully alleged negligent misrepresentation, and thus, under Zappone, he is not required to first pursue administrative remedies. Because the majority ignores the Zappone rule, and effectively forecloses a judicial remedy that is an equal or more efficient forum for resolution of Carter's claim, I most respectfully dissent.