Case Name/Case # Regina Brown v.
Supervalu, Inc. 475-2857
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
Donna M. B. King, Esq. (410) 494-1005
Civil Procedure/Venue
Judge/ Jurisdiction Ronald Silkworth Anne Arundel County Issues
Whether the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County erred in transferring an action to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County on grounds of forum non conveniens. The appellant notes that Supervalu is a corporation with its principal place of business in Prince George’s County, having 14 stores in Prince George’s County, and that one of the in- dividual appellees lives and works in Prince George’s County. On the other hand, the incident in question occurred at a Supervalu store in Anne Arundel County, forming the basis of the court’s transfer. The incident in question was an as- sault and battery in Anne Arundel County.
Gary Owens v. Board Paul F. Newhouse, Esq. of Trustees of Harford (410) 296-8565
Community College 476-00020
William O. Carr Harford County
In this case, the plaintiff was a tenured professor of philoso- phy and religion employed by Harford Community College for 10 years. The suit was filed after the professor was denied a promotion. The professor seeks to enforce the guidelines set forth by the defendant for consideration of an applica- tion for promotion. At issue was whether the promotion guidelines rose to the level of contractual obligations
Ian Broomfield v. Metro Muffler of Laurel, Inc. 477-2545-06
Anitha Johnson, Esq. (301) 891-1100 Civil Procedure/
Motion to Continue Trial
James J. Lombardi Prince George’s County
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by deny- ing a motion by the plaintiff to continue trial due to the unavailability of the plaintiff’s witnesses. This case has a lengthy procedural history involving multiple lawyers for the plaintiff. Ultimately, the plaintiff’s one expert witness was unavailable to testify at trial and both a motion to continue and a renewed motion to continue based on the witness’ unavailability were denied. The issue on appeal is whether these motions were properly denied and whether a continuance should have been permitted.
John A. Adams v. T. Joseph Touhey 478-2794
John A. Adams, pro se (301) 848-5836 Civil Procedure
Joseph S. Casula Prince George’s County
Whether the Circuit Court erred by dismissing the plaintiff’s case as a sanction for plaintiff’s failure to appear at the pre- trial conference. The plaintiff failed to appear at a pretrial conference because the conference took place after a hear- ing wherein the court directed that a new scheduling order would be issued. As a result, the plaintiff assumed that the pretrial conference had been cancelled. As of the date of the pretrial conference, no new scheduling order had been issued, however. The plaintiff also raises the question of whether dismissal is ever an appropriate sanction for failure to appear at a pretrial conference.
56
Trial Reporter
Winter 2008
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