Memorandum Opinion - the Circuit Court for Baltimore City

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