Appellate Watch by Cary J. Hansel
The Appellate Watch alerts our Amicus Committee about cases important to MTLA and advises members of issues pending before the Court of Special Appeals.
William E. Knight 465-02791
Case Name/Case # Valerie Kline v.
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
Contract Litigation
James F. Shalleck, Esq. (301) 987-0505
Judge/ Jurisdiction
Vincent Femia Prince Georges County
Issues
This case involves a joint venture agreement for the development of land. The defendant at the trial level guaranteed certain debts of the venture and then paid a third party $75,000 to be released from a guarantee on a note for approximately $590,000. At issue was whether a joint venture agreement required the defendant to remain as a guarantor or whether it was sufficient to pay the third party to be released.
Eliott Applespin v. Michael C. Worsham, Esq. Durke Thompson Fairfield Resorts, Inc. (410) 557-6192 466-0004
Telephone Solicitation
John Joseph Garrity, Jr. v.
Ailleenb Fassanella Civil Procedure/ 467-02700
Joseph C. Ruddy, Esq. (301) 699-5666
Discovery Pursuit Harford County
Catherine D. Savage Montgomery County
Whether the Circuit Court erred in refusing to certify a class ac- tion against telemarketers using prerecorded solicitation calls.
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to supplement discovery responses. The plaintiff claims in this case that the supplement responses had not been ordered by the court. A family member of plaintiff’s counsel unexpectedly developed a serious medical condition requiring surgery and an eight-week postoperative recuperation period. The plaintiff asserts on appeal that this was good cause for any delay in responding to discovery.
Andrea Taylor v. CSR Limited 468-02762
Edward J. Lilly, Esq. (410) 629-2000
Civil Procedure/ Personal Jurisdiction
Richard T. Rombro Baltimore City
Whether the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. This is an asbestos case in which the two plaintiffs were employed as longshoremen unloading cargo ships, including bags of asbestos fiber at the Port of Baltimore. In this case, the defendant CSR was an Australian corporation who sold asbestos fibers to American manufacturers allegedly consummating such sales in Australia. There was evidence below to the effect that bags of asbestos fibers bearing CSR’s logo and trademark were frequently unloaded at the Port of Baltimore, during the period of time when the plaintiffs worked at the Port of Baltimore. The plaintiffs proffered an expert witness and document to suggest that CSR was effectively responsible for the asbestos until it arrived and was unloaded in Baltimore. Further, under the applicable shipping agreements, CSR would have been able to file suit in a Maryland state court to protect its interest in its cargo. Finally, the plaintiffs produced invoices showing shipments of asbestos fibers into Baltimore weighing over 1.2 million pounds during the relevant period. The issue is whether, under all of these circumstances, the defendant had sufficient contacts with Mary- land for Maryland to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant.
Winter 2008 Trial Reporter 53
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64