govinfo:USCOURTS-mdd-1_26-cv-01965-0

1 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 
 
MARY CARROLL and * 
CORNELIUS CARROLL, individually 
and as Personal Representative of the Estate * 
of Timothy Cartwell, 
 * 
Plaintiffs, 
 * 
v. Civil Action No. RDB-26-1965 
 * 
MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL 
OF BALTIMORE and PACCAR, Inc., * 
 
Defendants. * 
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 
MEMORANDUM ORDER 
Plaintiff Mary Carroll and Plaintiff Cornelius Caroll, individually and as personal 
representative of the estate of Timothy Cartwell (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), bring this wrongful 
death action against Defendants the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland (“Mayor 
and City Council”) and PACCAR, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). This case, originally filed 
in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, arises out of the death of Timothy Cartwell on 
November 8, 2024. See generally (ECF No. 6-1). Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Cartwell, an employee 
of the Baltimore City Department of Public Works, was struck and killed by a truck driven by 
another Baltimore City employee. (ECF No. 11. ) Plaintiffs also allege that the truck which 
struck and killed him was manufactured by Defendant PACCAR. (Id.) 
There are two motions currently pending before the Court. The first is the Mayor and 
City Council’s Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 8.) The second is 
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand this case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. (ECF No. 12.) 

2 
As explained below, the Mayor and City Council’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) is DENIED 
AS MOOT and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED. 
Plaintiffs initiated this action on November 7, 2025 , in the Circuit Court for Baltimore 
City. (Id.) On February 10, 2026, Defendant PACCAR, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss. See (ECF 
No. 13 at 1 (detailing the procedural history of this case as it relates to PACCAR)). The Circuit 
Court for Baltimore City held a hearing on that motion on February 25, 2026, and then granted 
PACCAR’s motion on February 26, 2026. (Id.) The Circuit Court gave Plaintiffs leave to amend 
within thirty days. (Id.) 
On March 26, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a twelve -count First Amended Complaint, which 
alleged nine state claims against both Defendants a s well as three federal claims against the 
Mayor and City Council. 1 (ECF No. 6.) On April 24, 2026, PACCAR moved to dismiss the 
First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 13 at 2.) Around the same time, on May 19, 2026, 
Defendant the Mayor and City Council removed this case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1441 and § 1446. (ECF No. 1.) The Mayor and City Council invoked this Court’s subject 
matter jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1367, relying on the three federal claims in the 
First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) Upon removal of the case to this Court, the Mayor 
and City Council filed the pending Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 
Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 8.) 
On May 26, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the operative seventeen -count Second Amended 
 
1 Specifically, Plaintiffs brought federal claims against the Mayor and City Council in Counts I, II, and III of the 
First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 6.) Count I allege d, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that the Mayor and City Council 
violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution by the Mayor and City Council. 
(Id.) Count II claim ed that Defendant violated Standard Number 111 of the National Highway Transportation Safety 
Administration, 49 C.F.R. § 571.111. ( Id.) Count III alleged that the Mayor and City Council violated a regulation of the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 49 C.F.R. § 393.80. (Id.) 

3 
Complaint (ECF No. 11) . which contains no federal claims. Plaintiffs also filed the pending 
Motion to Remand this case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiffs’ 
argument for remand is that this Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over the case 
because there are no longer any federal causes of action. (Id.) 
On June 3, 2026, Defendant PACCAR filed a Consent Stipulation for Extension of 
Time to Respond to the Second Amended Complaint, seeking thirty days after this Court rules 
on the Motion to Remand (ECF No. 12) to file its response to the Second Amended Complaint. 
(ECF No. 13.) On June 8, 2026, the Mayor and City Council filed a Response to the Motion to 
Remand asking this Court to enter an order of remand to the state court.
2 (ECF No. 15.) 
Given that Defendant the Mayor and City Council, the party that sought removal from 
state court, consents to this case being remanded to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, its 
Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8) is DENIED AS MOOT. See 
Goodman v. Diggs , 986 F.3d 493, 498 (4th Cir. 2021) (“Ordinarily, an amended complaint 
supersedes those that came before it.”); accord Howard v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, Inc., RDB-18-3296, 
2019 WL 4750333, at *2 (D. Md. Sep. 30, 2019). Likewise, because Defendant the Mayor and 
City Council has consented to this case being remanded, this Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ 
Motion to Remand (ECF No. 12). 
Accordingly, it is this 9th day of June 2026 HEREBY ORDERED that: 
1. Defendant the Mayor and City Council’s Motion to Dismiss the First Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 8) is DENIED AS MOOT;
2 By e-mail on June 9, 2026, counsel for PACCAR indicated to this Court that it did not oppose this case being 
remanded to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. 

4 
2. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED;
3. This case shall be REMANDED to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City;
4. The Clerk of this Court shall CLOSE this case; and
5. The Clerk of this Court shall transmit copies of this Order to counsel.
Ri
chard D. Bennett 
United States Senior District Judge 
/s/

Passage view · GavelSight