SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2015
Wednesday, September 2, 2015:
Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA err when it vacated the arbitrator’s award in this case under the theory that the decision was contrary to an explicit public policy and that the arbitrator’s interpretation of the employees’ Weingarten rights under the collective bargaining agreement was too expansive? 2) If CSA erred, did the arbitrator’s order of reinstatement and back pay as the remedy for the violation exceed his authority?
Attorney for Petitioner: Abigail V. Carter
Attorney for Respondent: Josue Pierre
No. 2 Mario Sibug v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Where a criminal defendant is found to be incompetent to stand trial, must a court find that the defendant has regained competence before he or she can be tried? 2) Did the trial court err when it found Petitioner to be competent at sentencing without ordering a new competency evaluation or otherwise taking new evidence on the question of Petitioner’s competency?
Attorney for Petitioner: Brian L. Zavin
Attorney for Respondent: Mary Ann Ince
No. 4 Tower Oaks Boulevard, LLC v. Brent W. Procida, et al., Substitute Trustees
Issues – Corporations & Associations – 1) Does a third party have standing to challenge a limited liability company’s authority to prosecute or defend against litigation? 2) Where a limited liability company’s operating agreement vests power to act for the company in two persons acting jointly, and one cannot or will not act, is the other acting individually authorized to act for the company? 3) Is CSA’s holding that an operating agreement’s provision authorizing its manager to execute and sign all documents in each member’s name does not allow the manager to amend the operating agreement itself inconsistent with the Limited Liability Act’s policy to give the maximum effect to the principles of freedom of contract and to the enforceability of operating agreements?
Attorney for Petitioner: Christopher C. Fogelman
Attorney for Respondent: Brent W. Procida
AG No. 7 (2014 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Patricia DuVall Storch
Attorney for Petitioner: Dolores O. Ridgell
Attorney for Respondent: Patricia DuVall Storch
No. 6 Jakeem Roy v. Sandra B. Dackman, et al.
Issues – Torts – 1) Did the trial court err when it found that a board-certified pediatrician was not qualified as an expert to address the nature and extent of Petitioner’s injuries from childhood lead exposure? 2) Did CSA utilize the incorrect standard of review when it ignored the initial finding that the pediatrician was qualified to offer medical causation opinions and then reviewed his qualifications de novo?
Attorney for Petitioner: Scott E. Nevin
Attorneys for Respondent: William C. Parler, Jr. and Kelly A. Grafton
AG No. 28 (2014 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Matthew Richard Young
Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Matthew Richard Young
No. 5 Ruth Belche May, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Philip Royce May v. Air & Liquid Systems, Corp., etc., et al.
Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err by adopting a rule that any replacement of a component excuses the original manufacturer from any duty to warn without considering whether replacement of that component constituted a “substantial modification” of the condition of the product? 2) Did CSA err in upholding the trial court’s summary judgment ruling that Respondents did not owe a duty to the Petitioner to warn of exposure to asbestos dust created by maintenance of their pumps’ asbestos-containing parts because Petitioner could not establish that he was the first person to work on the pump after it was sold under the facts of this case where a) Respondents conceded they had a duty to warn the first worker who serviced the pump; b) the pumps were in an identical condition to their original sale when Petitioner worked on them; c) the pumps required asbestos-containing parts and the ordinary use of the pumps degraded these parts, mandating that they be replaced; d) warnings were possible and eventually given after Petitioner was no longer working with the pumps; and e) the risk was not only insurable but, in fact, insured? 3) Did CSA err in upholding the trial court’s summary judgment ruling that Respondents did not owe a duty to Petitioner when neither CSA nor the trial court performed a fact-specific duty analysis of the factors under Patton v. U.S. Rugby?
Attorney for Petitioner: Jonathan Ruckdeschel
Attorneys for Respondent: Laurie J. Hepler and F. Ford Loker
No. 3 Donald Richard Twigg v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When an appellate court holds that lesser included offenses should have been merged into the greater offense and it vacates the sentences that were merged for the lesser offenses, does the appellate court have the authority to vacate the sentence imposed for the greater offense and remand for re-sentencing for that offense where there has been no challenge on appeal to the legality of the conviction or sentence for the greater offense? 2) Did CSA have authority and/or discretion to remand this case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing after holding that several of Petitioner’s sentences should merge? 3) Is Petitioner’s concern that, on remand, his sentence may be illegally increased not ripe for review and without merit?
Attorney for Petitioner: Peter F. Rose
Attorney for Respondent: Sarah Page Pritzlaff
AG No. 74 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Joseph Michael Stanalonis
Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: William C. Brennan, Jr.
No. 78 (2014 T.) Joseph Simms v. State of Maryland
Attorney for Appellant: Nancy Forster
Attorney for Appellee: Robert Taylor, Jr.
No. 79 (2014 T.) Lauren McClanahan v. Washington County Department of Social Services
Issues – Family Law – 1) Does the CSA decision that a parent can be strictly liable for child abuse by mental injury by seeking medical help for her five year old based on the child’s disclosures and symptoms, absent any finding that the parent acted intentionally, recklessly, or in bad faith to cause injury, violated the Due Process Clause, Family Law Article §§ 5-701 et seq., and Taylor v. Harford County Department of Social Services, 384 Md. 213 (2004)? 2) Did Petitioner’s attorney waive Petitioner’s objections to the privileged testimony of a therapist by discussing the assertion of privilege by the child’s attorney in the collateral child custody proceeding? 3) Did the ALJ’s decision against Petitioner violate the immunity provisions of Family Law Article § 5-708 and Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 5-620?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Gregory F. Jacob and Rakesh Kilaru
Attorney for Respondent: Sandra Barnes
Misc. No. 20 (2014 T.) Montgomery County, Maryland v. Jean K. Phillips, et al.
Certified question of law from the Court of Special Appeals.
Question - Does the phrase "the total rate of tax that applies to a transfer subject to the agricultural land transfer tax" in § 13-407(a)(2) and (3) of the Tax-Property Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland include the "surcharge" imposed by § 13-303(d)?
Attorney forAppellant: Scott Foncannon
Attorney for Appellee: Diane Feuerherd
Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did this Court’s decision in Duckett v. Riley, 428 Md. 471 (2012), deprive Petitioner of its previously-valid jury demand, even though the Duckett ruling was expressly limited to a case involving a Civil Non-Domestic Case Information Report (“CIR”) that had never been served on the opposing party and this Court expressly left open the question of whether the outcome would be different if the plaintiff had served the CIR, as Petitioner has done here? 2) Did Petitioner properly demand its constitutional right to a jury trial when the law at the time of filing its complaint recognized the validity of Petitioner having demanded a jury trial by checking the appropriate box in the CIR? 3) Did Petitioner ever voluntarily and intentionally relinquish its known constitutional right to a jury trial?
Attorney for Petitioner: Steven M. Hecht
Attorney for Respondent: David H. Bamberger
No. 7 Allstate Lien and Recovery Corporation, et al. v. Cedric Stansbury
Issue – Commercial Law – Did CSA misinterpret Commercial Law Article §§ 16-201 - 209 in their conclusion that a lien and recovery company hired to execute a garageman’s lien cannot include its lien enforcement costs and expenses for executing the lien as part of the amount necessary to redeem the vehicle?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Steven A. Cohen and Randolph C. Baker
Attorney for Respondent: Jane Santoni
On the day of argument, counsel are instructed to register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.
After September 10, 2015 the Court will recess until September 28, 2015.
BESSIE M. DECKER