Memorandum Opinion - the Circuit Court for Baltimore City

the amount of money they make from those clients is not helpful in determining if Marylandhas jurisdiction even if 100% of RAA and Rothstein clients are Maryland residents, unlessRAA and Rothstein solicited business or engaged in business with those clients in Maryland.For example, RAA said that it represented Insurance Designers of Maryland in 10 mattersbut only one of those was a Maryland case; thus money that RAA made representingInsurance Designers of Maryland for work done exclusively outside the State of Marylandis not evidence that RAA and Rothstein continuously and systematically solicited or engagedin business in Maryland. Similarly, simply making phone calls or sending letters and emailsto Maryland is not soliciting or engaging in business in Maryland.ConclusionFor all the reasons stated above, the Court will enter an order granting RAA andRothstein’s motions in part and denying them in part, giving the plaintiffs a limited time toconduct the narrow discovery outlined above and to submit a supplemental memorandumbased on that discovery only.Dated: August 28, 2009____________________________________________JUDGE EVELYN OMEGA CANNON42