Memorandum Opinion - the Circuit Court for Baltimore City

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Maryland consisted of phone calls and correspondence betweenthem in Germany and Cape in Maryland. Defendants neverpracticed law in Maryland, never advertised or solicited businessin this State and never maintained an office here. At no timeduring the course of their representation of TCEC did anyDefendants or their agents travel to Maryland or appear in aMaryland court on behalf of Plaintiffs or undertake to performany services in Maryland.Id. at 125-26 (emphasis added). After noting that “[b]road constructions of generaljurisdiction should be generally disfavored,” the Court held that “[t]here can be no questionon this record that general jurisdiction is lacking and the Court need pursue the issue nofurther.” Id. at 127. The Court also went on to hold that Maryland lacked specific jurisdictionover the nonresident attorneys. Id. at 128.Here, as in Cape, RRA does not maintain an office in Maryland and none of itslawyers are licensed to practice law in the State of Maryland. Rather, RRA is a Florida lawfirm with principal places of business in Florida and New York. RRA’s contacts withMaryland have not been “continuous and systematic.” Maryland does not have generaljurisdiction over RRA or Rothstein.Specific JurisdictionUnlike the contacts required for general jurisdiction, contacts required for specificjurisdiction need not rise to the level of “continuous and systematic.” First American First,Inc. v. National Association of Bank Women, 802 F.2d 1511, 1516 (4 th Cir. 1986), citingHellicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n. 8 (1984). In determiningwhether specific jurisdiction exists, the Court considers “(1) the extent to which thedefendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of the privilege of conducting activitiesin the State; (2) whether the plaintiff’s claims arise out of those activities directed at the18
State; and (3) whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be constitutionallyreasonable.” Beyond Systems, 388 Md. at 26 (citations omitted). See also Bond, 391 Md. at723 (citing Burger King Corp.,v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 72 (1985)). Asserting specificjurisdiction over a non-resident is fair where there is a close “relationship among thedefendant, the forum, and the litigation.” First American, 802 F.2d at 1516 (citationsomitted). The specific jurisdiction analysis does not entail merely “count[ing] the contactsand quantitatively compar[ing] this case to other preceding cases.” Carefirst of Maryland,Inc., 334 F.3d at 397. The analysis rather is qualitative instead of quantitative. Id.The contacts that plaintiffs rely upon that relate to the cause of action are as follows:(1) an email dated December 22, 2006 sent from Rothstein to Strudwick which referenceda lawsuit that had purportedly been filed against Strudwick and threatened future litigationagainst Strudwick if he did not cease all actions with the subject Costa Rica land project; (2)an allegedly defamatory website, “BARRYBUSTED.com,” that contained a picture ofStrudwick, and identified his place of business and residence as Maryland; (3) allegedlydefamatory emails with hyperlinks to “BARRYBUSTED.com” sent to specific investors,including Maryland residents; and (4) a letter dated February 16, 2007 sent to Strudwick inMaryland in which Rothstein denies that WIN or Whitney were involved in launching“BARRYBUSTED.com.”Rothstein and RRA argue that these acts, neither singularly nor in combination, aresufficient to show that they purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conductingactivities in Maryland. Moreover, as the damages requested in this action relate only to theStrudwick Development located in Costa Rica, Rothstein and RRA argue that any relevantcontacts they may have with Maryland do not relate to plaintiffs cause of action.19
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 and 14: printout of the web page of RRA. Th
Page 15 and 16: (1958)] suggests that the activitie
Page 17: jurisdiction over RRA for its “co
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?