Memorandum Opinion - the Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Memorandum Opinion - the Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Memorandum Opinion - the Circuit Court for Baltimore City
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
(1958)] suggests that <strong>the</strong> activities of <strong>the</strong> defendant in <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>um state must have beencontemporaneous with or prior to <strong>the</strong> act or omission which created <strong>the</strong> cause of action.”).Because Rothstein and RRA entered <strong>the</strong>ir appearance on behalf of WIN and Whitneyafter <strong>the</strong> alleged wrongdoing occurred, <strong>the</strong>ir representation of WIN and Whitney is not arelevant <strong>for</strong>um contact. But even if Rothstein and RAA’s representation of WIN andWhitney in this case is considered along with <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r evidence on which plaintiffs rely, <strong>the</strong>evidence is not sufficient to show “continuous and systematic” activities in Maryland. Itdoes not establish that <strong>the</strong>y regularly do or solicit business in Maryland or that <strong>the</strong>y 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). Nei<strong>the</strong>r case advances <strong>the</strong>ir position. In Baker & Kerr, B & K, a Marylandcorporation, sued Michael P. Brennan, a certified public accountant licensed in <strong>the</strong>Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, <strong>for</strong> malpractice, breach of contract, and civil conspiracy.26 F. Supp. 2d at 768-69. Brennan had been retained by B & K to per<strong>for</strong>m Maryland stateand federal income tax returns from 1992 until 1995. Id. at 768. Over <strong>the</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> denied Brennan’s motion to dismiss <strong>for</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong> result of any random, <strong>for</strong>tuitous, orattenuated contacts, or because of any unilateral activity.” Id at 770 (citation omitted).15