Opinion ID: 2295382
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Duty of the Plaintiffs

Text: The Mutis should have identified Ricky as a use plaintiff. Lack of knowledge of his whereabouts did not prevent compliance. Certified mail notice to the use plaintiff's last known address, per Rule 15-1001(c), is a new requirement. See Reporter's Note, 22 Md. Reg., Issue 24 (Nov. 25, 1995). In the 1852 Act, the original plaintiff was required to deliver to the defendant, or to the defendant's attorney, full particulars of the persons on whose behalf the action was brought. That provision was merely directory, and in nowise affect[ed] the right of the plaintiff to maintain the suit, Philadelphia, Wilmington & Balt. R.R. Co. v. State, u/o Bitzer, 58 Md. 372, 398 (1882). In the Q Rules, effective January 1, 1962, the plaintiff was required to state in the original pleading the names and last known addresses of all persons who are or may be entitled by law to recover. Former Rule Q42. These provisions of the 1852 Act and former Rule Q42 seemed to put the onus on the defendant to fend for itself in achieving the benefit of the one-action rule. Rule 15-1001 does not bring forward, in express terms, the former Rule Q42 requirement that the names and addresses of all beneficiaries be stated in the original pleading. This is because Rule 15-1001(b) requires that all persons who are or may be entitled by law to damages be named as plaintiffs. Those beneficiaries who do not join are to be named as use plaintiffs. The Rules Committee considered that Rule 15-1001(b) would be read in conjunction with Rule 1-301(a). See Reporter's Note, 22 Md. Reg., Issue 24 (Nov. 24, 1995). Rule 1-301(a) in pertinent part provides: An original pleading shall contain the names and addresses, including zip code, of all parties to the action if the names and addresses are known to the person filing the pleading. If the address of a party is unknown, the pleading shall so state. Thus, what the Mutis need only have done is state in their complaint that any address for use plaintiff Ricky was unknown. It is important to note that, before that representation can be made by a plaintiff's counsel, counsel's duty of candor to the court requires that a good faith and reasonably diligent search first be made. [12] In cases in which the identity and location of the beneficiaries is known by the original plaintiffs, there ordinarily should be no difficulty in complying with Rule 15-1001. In cases where the whereabouts of an identified beneficiary are unknown, compliance with the steps outlined above, i.e., identification of the use plaintiff, a bona fide and reasonably diligent search, and advising the court if the original plaintiff has been unable to find a last known address for the use plaintiff, ordinarily should satisfy whatever obligations an original plaintiff has to a use plaintiff that can be derived from the CJ § 3-904 or Rule 15-1001.