Memorandum Opinion - the Circuit Court for Baltimore City

More documents

Recommendations

Info

epresentation in the early stages of this litigation, however, are not factors in the § 6-103(b)(4) analysis because “[w]hether general or specific jurisdiction is sought, a defendant's‘contacts’ with a forum state are measured as of the time the claim arose.” Cape, 932 F.Supp. at 127 citing Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Portage La Prairie Mut. Ins. Co., 907 F.2d911, 913 (9 th Cir. 1990) (“Only contacts occurring prior to the event causing the litigationmay be considered.”) and Rossman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 832 F.2d 282, 287, n.2 (4 th Cir. 1987). 12 See also Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Robertson-CECO Corp., 84F.3d 560, 569-70 (2 ndCir. 1996) ( in “general jurisdiction cases, district courts shouldexamine a defendant’s contacts with the forum state over a period that is reasonable underthe circumstances – up to and including the date the suit was filed”); In Re South AfricanApartheid Litigation v. Daimler AG, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 55065, (S.D. N. Y. June 22, 2009)(prima facie case for general jurisdiction not made where “bulk of evidence . . . post-datesthe filing of the Complaint” and “[r]elevant information is limited to a period . . . prior to thecommence of this lawsuit . . .”); Haas v. A.M. King Indus., 28 F. Supp. 2d 644, 648 (D.C.Utah 1998) (only relevant contacts were those “up to and including the time this lawsuit wasfiled in 1994, and [b]ecause the RMR project began after plaintiff filed suit, it will not beconsidered as a relevant contact for purposes of general jurisdiction.”). But see Carter v.Massey, 436 F. Supp. 29, 35 (D. Md. 1977) (“Nothing in Hanson v. Denckla [357 U.S. 23512“We do not base our holding on the fact that Consolidated expanded its connectionwith Virginia after the accident. The company did hire agents in Virginia to conduct aninvestigation of the accident and did send an employee to Virginia to attempt to effect asettlement with the Rossmans. We do not think that a party's investigation of possible legalliability after an accident creates in personam jurisdiction that would not otherwise exist. Ifit did, insurers would be discouraged from legitimate investigation and insureds would bedeprived of its benefits.” Rossman 832 F.2d at 287 n. 2.14
(1958)] suggests that the activities of the defendant in the forum state must have beencontemporaneous with or prior to the act or omission which created the cause of action.”).Because Rothstein and RRA entered their appearance on behalf of WIN and Whitneyafter the alleged wrongdoing occurred, their representation of WIN and Whitney is not arelevant forum contact. But even if Rothstein and RAA’s representation of WIN andWhitney in this case is considered along with the other evidence on which plaintiffs rely, theevidence is not sufficient to show “continuous and systematic” activities in Maryland. Itdoes not establish that they regularly do or solicit business in Maryland or that they engagein a “persistent course of conduct” in M aryland.Plaintiffs rely primarily on Baker & Kerr, Inc. v. Brennan, 26 F. Supp. 2d 767 (D. Md.2008) and Capital Source Finance, LLC v. Delco Oil, Inc., 520 F. Supp. 2d 684, 690 (D. Md.2007). Neither case advances their position. In Baker & Kerr, B & K, a Marylandcorporation, sued Michael P. Brennan, a certified public accountant licensed in theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania, for malpractice, breach of contract, and civil conspiracy.26 F. Supp. 2d at 768-69. Brennan had been retained by B & K to perform Maryland stateand federal income tax returns from 1992 until 1995. Id. at 768. Over the course of thosethree years, Brennan frequently communicated with principals of B & K by phone,correspondence, and fax. Brennan also traveled to Maryland at least six times. Id. at 768-69.The Court denied Brennan’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction reasoning that“Brennan purposefully directed his activities to B & K in Maryland” and as such he was notbeing “haled into a . . . [Maryland] . . . court as the result of any random, fortuitous, orattenuated contacts, or because of any unilateral activity.” Id at 770 (citation omitted).15
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 and 12: arm statute.” Mackey, 391 Md. at
Page 13: printout of the web page of RRA. Th
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?