Memorandum Opinion - the Circuit Court for Baltimore City

Plaintiffs argue that Maryland has personal jurisdiction over Rothstein and RRApursuant to Cts. and Jud. Proc. § 6-103(b)(4). Section 6-103(b)(4) provides:A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, whodirectly or by an agent:* * *Causes tortious injury in the State or outside of the State by anact or omission outside the State if he regularly does or solicitsbusiness, engages in any other persistent course of conduct inthe State or derives substantial revenue from goods, food,services, or manufactured products used or consumed in theState....The requirements of this section requires contacts much like the nature of the contactsrequired for the exercise of general jurisdiction over a defendant. See Stover v. O’ConnellAssociates, Inc., 84 F.3d 132, 136 n. * (4 th Cir. 1996) (“While § 6-103(b)(4) covers out-ofstateconduct that causes injury in the forum state, its plain language would appear to requiregreater contacts than the specific jurisdiction jurisprudence requires.”). However, becauseplaintiffs rely on both general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction cases and on contactsrelevant to both inquiries, the Court will determine if there is a basis for either general orspecific jurisdiction.General JurisdictionIn order to establish general jurisdiction, plaintiffs must show that Rothstein and RRAhave engaged in “continuous and systematic” activities in Maryland. Beyond Systems, 388Md. at 22. Plaintiffs argue that publically available information establishes that RRA andRothstein have significant clients in Maryland, and these contacts satisfy Cts. and Jud. Proc.§ 6-103(b)(4)’s requirement that the nonresident defendant “regularly does or solicitsbusiness” or “engages in any other persistent course of conduct in the State.” In support oftheir argument, plaintiffs attached to their Memorandum a document that appears to be a12