Memorandum Opinion - the Circuit Court for Baltimore City

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
printout of the web page of RRA. That document lists 48 clients including three thatplaintiffs presume are Maryland clients: Café Iguana, Insurance Designers of Maryland andZurich Insurance. RAA does not dispute that Insurance Designers of Maryland (“IDMD”)is one of its client. IDMD is an insurance company and has customers located all over theUnited States. From 2006 to 2008 IDMD retained RRA to handle about ten cases for IDMDcustomers. RRA states that during the same period it handled a total of 3,734 new mattersand that the revenue’s derived from representing IDMD in those ten cases was de minimus.RRA appeared before the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on one of those cases. 11Itsinvolvement lasted less than six months.Plaintiff also attached a printout from the Maryland State Department of Assessmentand Taxation of Iguana Cantina, LLC and The Zurich Corporation, two businesses withprincipal offices in Baltimore, presumably to show that they are Maryland clients listed onRRA’s website. Without any evidence to support it, plaintiffs state that Café Iguana is achain of nightclubs that owns and operates Iguana Cantina Night Club in Baltimore. RRApresented a printout from the Florida Division of Corporations showing that Café Iguana isa fictitious name of a Florida corporation, Kendal Sports Bar. Further Zurich Insurance islocated in Illinois and is clearly not the same company as The Zurich Corporation inBaltimore. Rothstein states he does not have any clients in Maryland.Plaintiffs also argue that “Rothstein and RRA . . . entered their appearance as counselfor their clients in Maryland, and earned hundreds of thousand[s] of dollars in fees whilelitigating this case in Maryland on behalf of WIN and Whitney.” RRA and Rothstein’s11Samuel Tetteh v. Iguana Cantina, LLC, Circuit Court for Baltimore City, 24-C-05-01021313
Page 2: In July 2008 Rothstein and Steven N
Page 5 and 6: shareholders permitting such voting
Page 7 and 8: lawsuit until such time as all reme
Page 9 and 10: In February 2007 defendants sent em
Page 11: arm statute.” Mackey, 391 Md. at
Page 15 and 16: (1958)] suggests that the activitie
Page 17 and 18: jurisdiction over RRA for its “co
Page 19 and 20: State; and (3) whether the exercise
Page 21 and 22: whether there is specific jurisdict
Page 23 and 24: tribunal less burdensome”). With
Page 25 and 26: emails marketing and soliciting bus
Page 27 and 28: v. Catacombs Press, 44 F. Supp. 2d
Page 29 and 30: shares relevant characteristics wit
Page 31 and 32: suffering of harm there, will not a
Page 33 and 34: the acts are “targeted at a plain
Page 35 and 36: Relying on Freetown v. Whiteman, 93
Page 37 and 38: the requirements of the conspiracy
Page 39 and 40: Instead it states that in deciding
Page 41 and 42: Plaintiffs’ assertion that RRA ha

Memorandum Opinion - the Circuit Court for Baltimore City

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?