WPC* =pb[9ТNK=gj_ClfPNI")ߥf0Ѕ`4.v5A Dx~5Ʈ=\ Ü.yū:Uso÷q΂)lsM)Sx 6͜G^WTVջS=7tR=*Ɋ3 &7{7(zET'Nh{wǀ2;DHNf_ ڲ݅efb!PvM^bnJ5ҥ:1?|_sH8[A \4  0n 0 $ 0< 0 0< 0 0f 0n 0X\ 0* 0 0 0~ 09 0 0 0F 0 0 0A 0  0 0 0Q 0 0 0L 0 0 0} 0< 0 0 0U 0 0 0~6 0 ! 0! %l" 0r"r"C# 0 $ 0$ 0(% D+% AQ%%% 0O&O&U, 'L' 0\'#(U N))M!*(%*NM*^ O*w[*4_*s* mu*\  `&Times New Roman'   .0Preferred Customer .   <:Default Par1XXX<22 :WP9_Heading1  XXX       XXX<:Default Para8"L 6WP9_Footer   !  A74 <DL!A<:WP9_Page Num<$$ :WP9_Body Te1  XXX  XXX:'' 8Body Text 2  XXX   XXX< :WP9_Heading         < :WP9_Body Tex    * (_26*Gn (_25   /% <DL!/  VL4 <DL!V  *8_ (_24  ," <DL!,  SI4 <DL!S*5\ (_23 ` )< <DL!)  PF4 <DL!P*2Y (_22  &DL!&  MC4 <DL!M*/V (_21  #DL!#  J@4 <DL!J*,S (_20 h  DDL!  G=4 <DL!G*)P (_19  L!  D:4 <DL!D*&M (_18  L!  A74 <DL!A*5\ (_175+ 4 <DL!5\R4 <DL!\*Gn (_16   /% <DL!/  VL4 <DL!V  *8_ (_15  ," <DL!,  SI4 <DL!S*5\ (_14 ` )< <DL!)  PF4 <DL!P*2Y (_13  &DL!&  MC4 <DL!M*/V (_12  #DL!#  J@4 <DL!J*,S (_11 h  DDL!  G=4 <DL!G*)P (_10  L!  D:4 <DL!D(&M &_9  L!  A74 <DL!A(5\ &_85+ 4 <DL!5\R4 <DL!\(Gn &_7   /% <DL!/  VL4 <DL!V  (8_ &_6  ," <DL!,  SI4 <DL!S(5\ &_5 ` )< <DL!)  PF4 <DL!P(2Y &_4  &DL!&  MC4 <DL!M(/V &_3  #DL!#  J@4 <DL!J(,S &_2 h  DDL!  G=4 <DL!G()P &_1  L!  D:4 <DL!D&&M $_  L!  A74 <DL!A6$$ 4WP9_TitleXXX    XXX  7z)..      =XXX=XXXX=X  _@'''Page  1  ڀof  9  (2z$ ;9!..      =XXXX=XXXXX=XX   (2z$ ;9!..      =XXXX=XXXXX=XX  =X(2z$ ;9!..      =XXXX=XXXXX=XX  ݃ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2z$ ;9!..      =XXXX=XXXXX=XX  (2z$ ;9!..      =XXXX=XXXXX=XX  ($'dxd/0123C<< c(2z$ ;9!..      =XXXX=XXXXX=XX  $Tahoma#|x(9$..      =XXXX=XXXXX=XXHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL$,,,,$0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularp- sU-:i+00 U ;9!..      =XXX=XXXX=X  _@& JULY2002   @W W  OUTOFSTATEATTORNEYSEXAMINATION  | @  QUESTIONSANDBOARDSANALYSIS  H @  FACTSAPPLICABLETOQUESTIONS1through4  d ?+ 4 <DL!X?   InanefforttoincreaseCountyrevenues,CalvertCountyGovernmentmadeaconscious    efforttovigilantlyenforcethetowingofvehicleswhichareillegallyparked,unregisteredor    haveoutstandingparkingtickets.AllsuchtowingoperationsareafunctionofCounty   government,performedbyCountyemployees. x    OnApril7,2000,MarvinManiac,aCalvertCountytowtruckdriverandemployee, D  spottedtheillegallyparkedautomobileofTonyTeflonanduponchecking,immediately *z  ascertainedthatTeflonalsohadaseriesofunpaidCalvertCountyparkingtickets.AsManiac ` endeavoredtohookandchainTeflonsautomobiletotheCountyownedtowtruck,Teflon F suddenlyemergedfromtherestaurantacrossthestreet,hoppedinhisvehicleandspedaway. , IncensedthatTefloneludedhimoncethetowingprocesshadcommenced,Maniachoppedinthe  towtruckandspedoffinhotpursuitofTeflontocompletethetowjob.    Whileengagedinthechase,ManiacstruckplowedintotherearofSallyStillsvehicle, t properlystoppedataredlight,injuringSallyandcausinghervehicletoplowintoPaula Z Pedestrian,killingherinstantly. @   InMay2002,SallyandPeter,Paulaswidower,cametoseeyou,anewlylicensed  \ Marylandattorneyandsolopractitioner,tofilesuitagainstCalvertCountyandManiacinthe B CalvertCountyCircuitCourtfor$500,000inactualdamagesand$1millioninpunitivedamages ( forinjuriessustainedbySallyandawrongfuldeathactiononbehalfofPeterandMary,Peter  andPaulasminorchild,forPaulasdeath.    XXXX       &     QUESTION1 ݌ p!  Ќ    XXXX    XXXX         t ݌̌    XXXX    XXXX        ݀ (15Points27Minutes) 'p!w  F ݌ <#" Ќ    XXXX  (  Whatproblems,ifany,doyouseeinrepresentingPeterandSally,asrequested?  %X $  @"BOARDSANALYSIS  &$"& B+ 4 <DL!X!B  First,IwouldadvisePeterandSallythatthereisapotentialforconflictofinterestin (#( representingbothclients,asitispossiblethattheCountymayarguethatSallysactioninsome )$) waycontributedtoPaulasdeath.PursuanttoRule1.7oftheRulesofProfessionalConduct,I l*%* mustnotrepresentsaidclientsiftheirinterestsareormaybecomeadverseunlessbothconsent R+&+ afterconsultation. 8,', Ї  Second,Iwouldadvisepotentialclientsthatevenabsentanyconflictofinterest,asanew  attorney,Imighthavetoeitherdeclinethecaseorassociatemyselfwithamoreexperienced  attorney,unlessIamabletoquicklybecomecompetentinthisareaofthelawsinceRule1.1of | theRulesofProfessionalConductmandatethatIpossesstherequisiteknowledgeandskill b necessaryfortherepresentation. H   ThethirdproblemwithfilingsaidclaimsisthatpursuanttoSection5301oftheCourts  d andJudicialProceedingsArticle,CalvertCountyissubjecttotheLocalGovernmentTort  J ClaimsActwhichrequirespotentialplaintiffstoservenoticeofapotentialclaimagainstthe  0 localgovernmentoritsemployeewithin180daysoftheinjury.Inthisinstance,2yearsand1    monthhavepassedandthefactsdonotindicatethattherequisitenoticehasbeenprovided.       QUESTION#2 x   (10Points18Minutes)  D      WhatdefensesmightCalvertCountyassert?  ` @" BOARDSANALYSIS  ,   Asnotedabove,theCountymayarguethattheactionmustfailbecauseitwasnot  broughtwithinthe180daysoftheinjury,asrequiredinSection5301oftheCourtsandJudicial  ProceedingsArticle. t   Pursuantto9XXXX#XXX9X#Ԁ5303(c)oftheCourts&JudicialProceedingArticle,theCountywillalso @ assertthatalocalgovernmentmaynotbeliableforpunitivedamages,soSallysclaimfor$1 3 milliondollarsinpunitivedamagesagainstCalvertCountyshouldfail. i   Moreover,pursuantto5303(a)oftheCourtsandJudicialProceedings,Article,Calvert 5 Countysliability,ifany,maynotexceed$200,000perindividualclaimsor$500,000intotal  claimsarisingfromthesameoccurrence,therebyforeclosingtheamountsoughtbythe  Plaintiffs.     Asidefromthelackoftimelynotice,(aprerequisiteundertheLocalGovernmentTort c"! ClaimsAct)andtheabovereferencedlimitationsonliability,CalvertCountywouldlikelyassert I#" thattheCountyisnotliableforManiacsactionsbecausespeedingoffinhotpursuitofTeflon /$# wasoutsidethescopeofManiacsemployment.However,itiswellestablishedundertheLocal %e $ GovernmentTortClaimsActthatlocalgovernmentshavenoimmunityfromevenintentional %K!% tortsoftheiremployees,unlesscommittedwithactualmalice.Thomasv.CityofAnnapolis,113 &1"& Md.App.440,688A.2d448(1997)Theoveralltestregardingscopeofemploymentiswhether '#' thetortiousactsweredonebytheemployeeinfurtheranceoftheemployersbusiness.Ennisv. (#( Crenca,322Md.285,587A.2d488(1991)  )$)   y*%* 0DL!X!0Q44#&   QUESTION#3  Ѐ@SS (5Points9Minutes)  | E+ 4 <DL!DX!E  Assumingthereisnoimpedimenttofilingsaidsuit,whatisthemaximumamount H thatSallycouldrecoverindamages? . ~ @"BOARDSANALYSIS  J   XXXX         ݌̌    XXXX    PursuanttoSection5303oftheCourtsandJudicialProceedingsArticletheliabilityofa    localgovernmentsuchasCalvertCountymaynotexceed$200,00perindividualclaim,soany    ofSallysdamagesimputedtotheCountyarelimitedtothisamount.IfManiacisfoundtohave   actedbeyondthescopeofhisauthoritytheCountymayindemnifyhimforanypunitivedamages x  enteredagainsthim,however. '  ^    QUESTION#4 *z   (10Points18Minutes)  F     AssumingyouacceptrepresentationofPeterandMaryandfileaComplaint  pursuanttoMarylandRules2303through2305,arethereanyotherrequirementsofthe  Complaintgiventhenatureoftheclaim?     `     h BOARDSANALYSIS Z   PursuanttoMarylandRule151001(d),aComplaintforwrongfuldeathmustalsostate &v therelationshipofeachplaintifftothedecedentwhosedeathisallegedtohavebeencausedby  \ thewrongfulact.  B   0DL!X!0@ FACTSAPPLICABLETOQUESTIONS5and6  E+ 4 <DL!DX!E  TheAvenelcommunityinMontgomeryCountyhasexperiencedarashofarsons,allin   thevicinityoftheofficeofDr.JoeWeider,apsychiatrist.TheMontgomeryCountyPolice p!  DepartmentsetupasurveillanceofDr.Weidersofficeandlearnedthataregularpatientwas V"! PaulPoe.PaulPoehadbeenthesubjectofpriorarsoninvestigationsbuthadneverbeen <#" charged.AfterfollowingMr.PoeforafewweeksthePolicebelievedtherewassufficient "$r# evidencetochargeMr.Poe.HewasultimatelyarrestedandappearedbeforetheCommissioner %X $ onMay1,2002. %>!%   Mr.PoewasaresidentofMontgomeryCountyandastudentatthelocalcommunity ' #' college.Healsohadnopriorcriminalrecord.TheCommissionerwasawareofthesefactsand (#( toldPoethattheredidntappeartobeanyprobablecauseforhisarrest.Nonetheless,atthe )$) urgingofthepoliceofficer,theCommissionerimposedbailintheamountof$50,000.  l*%*   R+&+   Uponpostingbail,PoewenttotheLawOfficeofLindaHand,afamilyfriend,andasked   thatsherepresenthim.AlthoughLindawasataxattorneysheagreedtotakethecasefora  contingentfeeof$20,000downwithanadditional$15,000tobepaidifPoeisacquittedofall | charges.OnMay20,2002,LindaHandfiledamotionforapreliminaryhearingandamotionto b reducebail.  H   QUESTION#5  d  (10Points18Minutes)   0    XXXX       -   -.݌̌  XXXX     XXXX     .    WhatproblemsdoyouseeinLindaHandsrepresentationofPoe,andhowwould    youruleonhermotions? ..݌   Ќ  XXXX  0DL!X!0@"BOARDSANALYSIS D  E+ 4 <DL!DX!E  LindasrepresentationofPoerunsafoulofseveralprovisionsofRule1.5ofthe ` MarylandRulesofProfessionalResponsibility.Rule1.5(a)requiresallfeesbereasonable.In F assessingthereasonablenessofafee,factorstobeconsideredincludetheexperience,reputation , andabilityofthelawyer,thenatureandlengthoftheprofessionalrelationshipwiththeclient,  andtheskillrequisitetoperformthelegalserviceproperly.Lindasfeemaynotbereasonable  sinceshehasnoexperienceinthisareaandnopriorrelationshipwithPoe.Moreover,Lindas  feewascontingentand,therefore,inclearviolationofRule1.5(d)sproscriptionagainstsuch t feesinacriminalmatter. Z   XXXX    4  4h4݌̌  XXXX    XXXX    4    Rule4213(a)(4)providesthatadefendantisentitledtoapreliminaryhearingwhen &v chargedwithafelonyifarequestismadewithintendaysafterbeingadvisedofhisrightbya  \ Commissioner.Lindasrequestforapreliminaryhearingcameseveraldaystoolateandshould B bedenied.4)5݌ ( Ќ  XXXX    XXXX  7    However,Ms.Handmaybesuccessfulwithhermotiontoreducebail.Rule4216(e)  notesthattheCommissionermustconsiderseveralfactorsinherdeterminationtoreleasea   defendant.Someapplicabletotheinstantfactsarethedefendantspriorrecord,lengthof p!  residenceinthecommunity,flightrisk,andnatureoftheevidenceagainstthedefendant.The V"! factsnotethattheCommissionerdidntbelievetherewasprobablecausetoarrestPoe,thathe <#" hadnopriorrecord,andhadstrongtiestothecommunity. 7]7݌ "$r# Ќ  XXXX  @J J ADDITIONALFACTSAPPLICABLETOQUESTION6 %>!%   OnMay31,2002,theStateissuedasubpoenatoDr.WeiderrequestingthattheDoctor ' #' appearattheupcomingcriminaltrialandprovideinformationconcerninghissessionswithPaul (#( Poe.ThesubpoenawasserveduponDr.Weider,aresidentofVirginia,attheCircuitCourtof )$) AnneArundelCountybyaprivateinvestigatorwhohappenedtobepresentatahearinginwhich l*%*  thedoctorwasprovidingexperttestimony.Theinvestigatorurgedthedoctortocomplywiththe R+&+ subpoena,stressingthat itwasjustamatteroftimebeforePoekillssomeoneandtheDoctor  willberesponsibleifthatoccurs.   Dr.Weiderimmediatelycomestoyou,adulylicensedMarylandattorney,andaskswhetherhe b mustappearatthetrial,whetherhehasanaffirmativedutytodiscloseanyinformationfromhis H sessionswithPoe.  . ~   QUESTION6  J  (10Points18Minutes)         WhatwouldyouadviseDr.Weiderandwhy?Discussfully.   @"BOARDSANALYSIS D  B+ 4 <DL!X!B  ServiceuponDr.Weiderwasimproperandthesubpoenamay,therefore,bequashed. ` Section6305oftheMarylandCourtsandJudicialProceedingsCodeAnnotatedexpresslynotes F that [a]nonresidentpersonwhoiswithintheStateforthepurposeoftestifyinginor , prosecutingordefendinganactionmaynotbeservedwithprocess.However,theStatemay  arguethatthedoctorwasnotintheStatesolelytotestifysincehehasanofficeinMontgomery  County.Assumingservicewereproper,Dr.WeiderstestimonyissubjecttoSection9109of  theMarylandCourtsandJudicialProceedingsCodeAnnotatedwhichprovidesthat apatientor t hisauthorizedrepresentativehasaprivilegetorefusetodisclose,andtopreventawitnessfrom Z disclosing,communicationsrelatingtodiagnosisortreatmentofthepatientsmentalor @ emotionaldisorder.Thesubpoenamayultimatelybequashedforthisreason. &v   XXXX    D  DD݌̌  XXXX    XXXX    TE  IwouldalsoadviseDr.Weiderthattheinvestigatorwasmakinganidlethreatagainsthim. B Section5609oftheMarylandCourtsandJudicialProceedingsCodeAnnotatedprovidesa ( privilegeagainstacauseofactionordisciplinaryactionagainstamentalhealthcareprovider  thatfailstopredict,warnof,ortakeprecautionstoprovideprotectionfromapatientsviolent  behaviorunlesssaidproviderknewofthepatientspropensityforviolenceandthepatient   somehowadvisessaidproviderofhis/herintenttoinflictimminentphysicalinjuryupona p!  specificvictimorgroupofvictims.NothinginthefactsindicatethatPoeintendedtoinflictsuch V"! injury. TEE݌ <#" Ќ  XXXX  0DL!X!0Q FACTSAPPLICABLETOQUESTION7 %X $ E+ 4 <DL!DX!E  JamalTeediedonFebruary25,1998.LindaGeewasappointedthepersonal &$"& representativeofhisestateonMarch22,1998.Atthetimeofhisdeath,Jamalowed$50,000on ' #' anotethatsecuredhiscondominiuminHawaii.OnAugust2,1998,LindaGeecontactedLee (#( Ball,theattorneyinHawaiiwhorepresentedtheholderofthenote( Creditor),todiscuss )$) satisfactionofthenote.LindaGeealsoaskedBalltoassistherinestablishingancillary l*%* administrationinHawaii.BallaskedwhetherheneededtodoanythinginMarylandandwas R+&+ toldthatGee,aspersonalrepresentative,wouldhandleeverythinginMarylandandheneednot 8,', fileaclaimsincehisclientwasaknownscheduledcreditor.LindaGeesentasubsequentletter  onAugust20,1998,confirmingthatBallneednotfileaclaimagainsttheestate.  InJanuary2002,BallfiledsuitinHawaiionbehalfofCreditoragainstLindaGeeaspersonal b representativetorecoverthemoneysowedonthenote.LindaGeedidnotrespondtothesuit H andBallwasawardedjudgmentintheamountof$50,000.Ballthenfiledaclaimagainstthe . ~ estateforthejudgmentamount.LindaGeefiledandmailedtoBallaNoticeofDisallowanceof  d Claimcitingtheapplicableprovisionoflawthatallclaimsmustbefiledwithinsixmonthsofthe  J dateofdeath.  0 Frustrated,BallcomestoyouadulylicensedMarylandattorney,andaskswhetherthereisa    provisionofMarylandlawthatwouldbardisallowanceoftheclaim.    @yy%QUESTION7 ^  @ (10Points18Minutes)  *z    Whatproceduralrulewouldyoucite,andwhy? F @"BOARDSANALYSIS    LindaGee,aspersonalrepresentative,couldnotadviseBallthatBallneednotfilea  claimasaknowncreditor,thenuseBallsfailuretofileatimelyclaimagainsthim.Doingsois t arguablytantamounttothetypeoffraudaddressedinSection5203oftheCourtsandJudicial Z ProceedingsCodeAnnotated,whichprovidesasfollows: @   ?(4 4 <DL!X!?Iftheknowledgeofacauseofactioniskeptfromapartybythefraudofanadverse  \ party,thecauseofactionshallbedeemedtoaccrueatthetimewhenthepartydiscovered,orby B theexerciseofordinarydiligenceshouldhavediscoveredthefraud. ( B+ 4 <DL!44X!B  Accordingly,BallshouldseekthecourtshelpunderRule6141(BadFaith!unjustified  proceedings)insettingasideGeesNoticeofDisallowanceofClaim.    0DL!X!0Q FACTSAPPLICABLETOQUESTION8 V"! E+ 4 <DL!DX!E  JohnT.foundedtheChurchoftheTrueBelieversin1970,attheageof62.TheChurch "$r# wasdulyincorporatedinMaryland.AccordingtotheArticlesofIncorporationandBylawsthe %X $ electedofficersofthechurchareJohnT.andthebishopsdulyappointedbyhim.OnJanuary1, %>!% 2000,PaulProfetdisseminatedamemorandumtothemembershipannouncingthathewas &$"& appointedasbishopbyJohnT.andwouldbetheChiefExecutiveOfficeroftheChurchgiven ' #' JohnT.sadvancedage. (#(   OnFebruary1,2001,MaryMaydenpetitionedtheCircuitCourtforPrinceGeorges l*%* CountytoissueatemporaryrestrainingorderandpreliminaryinjunctivereliefagainstPaul R+&+ ProfettoprecludehimfromreferringtohimselfasbishopandCEO.Inhercomplaint,Mayden 8,', allegedthatProfetwasfraudulentlycollectingmoneyintheChurchsnameandwas  disseminatingmisleadinginformationastohisstatusasaChurchleader.  OnFebruary2,2001,theCourtorderedProfet,aresidentoftheDistrictofColumbia,toshow b causeatahearingheldonFebruary27,2001whyatemporaryrestrainingordershouldnotbe H issued.ProfetfailedtoappearonFebruary27,2001.Maydentestifiedatthehearingthatmost . ~ membersoftheChurchdidnotknowProfet,norweretheyawareofhisattemptstosolicit  d monies.Afterreviewingthepleadingsandtestimony,theCourtgrantedapreliminaryinjunction  J restrainingProfetfromcollectingmoneysorreferringtohimselfasbishoporCEOofthe  0 Church.OnFebruary28,2001,Maydenpersonallyservedthetemporaryrestrainingorderon    ProfetsseventeenyearoldnieceatProfetsresidence.               r_  QUESTION8 r__݌ ^  Ќ     _   ` _ @(10Points18Minutes)  *z    Profetcomestoyou,adulylicensedMarylandattorney,andasksthatyoufilea F motiontodissolvetheinjunction.Onwhatgroundswouldyoubaseyourmotion? , @"BOARDSANALYSIS     IwouldpetitionthecourtforadissolutionoftheinjunctionpursuanttoRule15504(f). t Maydendidnotshowthattherewouldbeimmediate,substantialandirreparableharm,as Z requiredbyRule15504(a).See,also,ElBeyv.MoorishScienceTemple,362Md.339,765 @ A.2d132(2001);Costerv.DepartmentofPersonnel,36Md.App.523,373A.2d1287(1977) &v Underthefacts,Maydenalsomadenoshowingthatshewasauthorizedtobringtheaction.  \   Finally,Rule15502(d)providesthataninjunctionisnotbindingonapersonuntilthat ( personhasbeenpersonallyservedorhasreceivedactualnoticebyanymeans.Iwouldargue  thatProfetwasnotproperlyservedsinceRule2123precludesservicebyaparty.Iwouldalso  arguethatserviceofhisunderageniecedoesnotsatisfythestricturesofRule2124.Forthese   reasonstheinjunctionshouldbedissolved. p!  0DL!X!0 Q  FACTSAPPLICABLETOQUESTION9  <#" E+ 4 <DL!DX!E  SteveSurferisaresidentofOceanCity,Maryland.Heenjoysrelaxingonthebeachwith %X $ hisfriends.HereadintheOceanCityNewspaperanadvertisementforasaleonbeachclothes %>!% attheRehobothBeach,DelawareOutletStores.HealsonoticedonthebillboardinOceanCity, &$"& MarylandthattheoutletstoresinRehobothwereadvertisingthisgreatsale. ' #'   SteveandhisfriendstraveledtotheBeachStoreinRehobothBeach,Delaware,asole )$) proprietorshipownedandoperatedbyBuffBeach.WhileintheStore,Steve,whowasnot l*%* wearinganyshoes,steppedonbrokenglassandseverelyinjuredhisfoot.Asaresultofhis R+&+ injuryhewashospitalizedforthreedays,andoutofworkforsixmonths. 8,', Ї  Stevecomestoyou,adulylicensedMarylandattorney,andasksyoutofilesuitagainst  theBeachStore.Youbelieveheisentitledtoapproximately$26,000indamages,andintendto  requestthatamountinyoursuit. | 0DL!X!0Qff# QUESTION9  H @(10Points18Minutes)  d E+ 4 <DL!DX!E  Underwhatauthority,mayyoufilesuitinMaryland?Inwhatcourtwouldyoufile  0 suit?Howmayserviceofprocessbeobtainedagainstthedefendant?Discussfully.     0DL!X!0Q  BOARDSANALYSIS    E+ 4 <DL!DX!E  MarylandCourtsandJudicialProceedingsSection6103conferspersonaljurisdictionfor ^  causesofactionarisingfromtortiousinjuryoutsidetheStateifthedefendant regularlydoesor D  solicitsbusiness,engagesinanyotherpersistentcourseofconductintheStateorderives *z  substantialrevenuefromgoods,food,services,ormanufacturedproductsusedorconsumedin ` theState."OnecouldarguethatthefactthattheOutletsadvertiseinMarylandmaymakethem F subjecttojurisdictioninMaryland. ,   Withreferencetohowserviceofprocesscanbemade,MarylandCourtsandJudicial  ProceedingsSection6304notesthatservicemayoccuroutsideoftheState:"[I]ftheexerciseof  personaljurisdictionisauthorizedbythistitle(6103) t   ThesuitmustbebroughtinCircuitCourtsincetheamountincontroversyexceeds @ $25,000.(CourtsandJudicialProceedingsCodeAnnotated,Section4401)Sincethe &v DefendantisnotdomiciledinMaryland,suitmaybebroughtinanyCircuitCourt.(Courtsand  \ JudicialProceedingsCodeAnnotated,Section6202) B @  FACTSAPPLICABLETOQUESTION10     Moms,anationallyknownconveniencestore,receivedpermissionfromthezoning   authoritytooperateitsconveniencestoreinPrinceGeorgesCounty,Maryland.77,a p!  conveniencestorelocatedalsoinPrinceGeorgesCounty,Maryland,isdisturbedbythezoning V"! decisionandisaggrievedbytheCountysdecisiontopermitacompetitorconveniencestore, <#" Moms,toopentwoblocksfrom77.ThezoningauthoritysapprovalbecamefinalonApril10, "$r# 2002,and77receivedacopyofitsdecisiononthatdate.OnMay12,2002,77fileditsappeal %X $ oftheCouncilsdecisionintheCircuitCourt.OnMay14,2002,77servedMomswitha %>!% subpoenatoproduceallsalesreceiptsforthepasttwoyearsforitsstoreinHarfordCounty, &$"& Maryland. ' #'   Momsimmediatelycontactedyou,adulylicensedMarylandattorney,andaskedthat )$) youdowhateverwasnecessarytocounter77'sappealandthesubpoena.   l*%*   R+&+ @``% & d  QUESTION10   @(10Points18Minutes) | B+ 4 <DL!X!B   WhatpleadingwouldyoufileonMomsbehalf,andwhy?Discussfully. H 'dx0DL!X!0Q BOARDSANALYSIS   d E+ 4 <DL!DX!E  IwouldfileaMotiontoQuashthesubpoena.AlthoughtheMarylanddiscoveryrulesare  0 quitebroad,discoveryrequestsarelimitedtoanynonprivilegedmatterrelevanttothesubject    matterinvolvedintheaction.(MarylandRule2402(a))Iwouldarguethatthesalesreceiptsfor    aparticularMomsinHarfordCountyarenotrelevanttoazoningdecisioninPrinceGeorges   County.Moreover,andmoreimportantly,anappealofanadministrativeagencysdecisionison x  therecordabsentaspecificlawthatallowsadditionalevidencetobeintroducedintheCircuit ^  Courtappeal.(MarylandRule7208) D    IwouldalsofileaMotiontodismisstheappealpursuanttoMarylandRule7204(b). ` Rule7203generallyprovidesthatapetitionforjudicialreviewbefiledwithin30daysofthe F laterof: ,  P B+ 4 <DL!X!B  1. ` Thedateoftheorderoractionofwhichreviewissought;    2. ` Thedatetheadministrativeagencysentnoticeoftheorderoractiontothe  petitioner,ifnoticewasrequiredbylawtobesenttothepetitioner;or t   3. ` Thedatethepetitionerreceivednoticeoftheagencysorderoraction,ifnotice Z wasrequiredbylawtobereceivedbythepetitioner. @  P B+ 4 <DL! X!B77didnotnoteatimelyappealanditshould,therefore,bedismissed.