Memorandum Opinion - the Circuit Court for Baltimore City

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Board of Regents, 711 F.2d 1387 at 1392 (noting that “the ‘conspiracy theory’ of personaljurisdiction is based on the ‘time honored notion that the acts of [a] conspirator in furtheranceof the conspiracy may be attributed to the other members of the conspiracy.’” quoting GeminiEnterprises, Inc. v. WFMY Television Corp., 470 F. Supp. at 564) (emphasis added;alterations in original). Thus, even if the complaint was amended to add a conspiracy count,Maryland would not have personal jurisdiction over Rothstein and RAA. 30Wavier of Personal JurisdictionPlaintiffs argue that the motion should be denied because Rothstein and RRA losttheir right to challenge personal jurisdiction when they asked the court to assign the case tothe Business and Technology Program. 31The Motion to have this case assigned to theBusiness and Technology Management Program was filed on July 2, 2009, about two weeksafter the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction was filed. The decision toassign a case to the Business and Technology Program is nothing more than a decision by thecourt on how to manage its cases, and a request to have a case in the program is no more “inderogation” to a contest of personal jurisdiction than a request to have a hearing on a Mondayinstead of a Friday. A request to have a case assigned to the Business and TechnologyProgram can be made on the Information Report filed by a party pursuant to Md. Rule 2-111and the decision to assign it or not is not appealable.Plaintiffs argue that Md. Rule 16-205(c)(4) provides that cases may be transferred tothe program when the “parties waive venue objections.” That is not what the rule states.30The Court is not deciding whether plaintiffs could state a cause of action for conspiracyagainst Rothstein and RAA.31The Motion was granted.38
Instead it states that in deciding whether a case should be assigned to the program, a judgemay consider “whether the parties agree to waive venue for the hearing of motions and otherpretrial matters.” Additionally “venue” is not “personal jurisdiction”. And finally, beforethe case was transferred to the program, the motion was filed and Judge Berger, who grantedthe motion, was specifically informed that Rothstein and RRA challenged jurisdiction andvenue. 32 Rothstein and RRA did not waive their right to argue lack of personal jurisdiction.DiscoveryFinally, plaintiffs argue that at the very least, they have made a “colorable showing”of jurisdiction and that therefore the Court should allow for further jurisdictional discoveryas to the full extent of the business activities of RRA and Rothstein in Maryland. Rothsteinand RAA argue that all plaintiffs have provided is conclusory statements and speculation andthat discovery should be denied. Plaintiffs have not suggested that discovery is needed toestablish specific jurisdiction, thus any discovery would relate solely to whether RRA and/orRothstein have “continuous and systematic” contacts with Maryland. The only Marylandcontacts plaintiffs rely on to support a claim for discovery are RAA’s representation ofIguana Cantina, LLC in a 2005 case and the fact that Insurance Designers of Maryland is oneof RAA’s clients.In Beyond Systems the Court upheld the trial court’s denial of discovery onjurisdiction where the plaintiff produced only scant evidence in support of jurisdiction. 38832In fact Rothstein and RAA have not challenged venue, and any such challenge is waived.See Md. Rule 2-322(a) and Neimeyer and Schuett, Maryland Rules Commentary, p. 201 discussedin note 5.39
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 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: the requirements of the conspiracy
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?