WPCW g$iȸx˟ɠtjlS;j1-bT@:m5( J􁵲>xghؓ)z:ɼW|x c/XBy8OSɃ)umZ8VV8@"Y*8>NTsVrb:`ZWف3qƦX ~$IGGV;I)}}[  ]XR;%C;T/߄2 兞f[byⒽ&,E\Fk&ۮpylv5?ۅ]7b)sOy-ZoJ=J6:hT\ R|z<-@pfPPk!z4͠3Sc6t 0 0 0, 0? 0R 0e 0x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0! 0" 0# 0<$ 01<$ 052%g& 0'UZJ;( B( 0 C(("+/+".w.l14"6a6":1:UJ>" ?#/?"RCtC">E`E["H"}M"MM"QQ"KS 0mSoT 0T#UUNV %(WM.W(2WNZW^ \WwhW4lWW mW\  `&Times New Roman' SEMTEK INTERNATIONAL Training0Training .   2[+[ 0_level1   , 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level2   X 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level3    8.4` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level4    8.` ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level5    8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level6    8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level7   4 8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level8   ` 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level9    8.<` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl1   , 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl2   X 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl3    8.4` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl4    8.` ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl5    8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl6    8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl7   4 8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl8   ` 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl9    8.<` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl1   , 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl2   X 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl3    8.4` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl4    8.` ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl5    8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl6    8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl7   4 8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl8   ` 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl9    8.<` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  <:Default Para<:Footnote Ref2+P 0Level 1            X 8.` hp x (#823  ..  8.` hp x (#8    "$)..      CaXCXaCa  _  X'Xa  aXX'(2$$ A!..      CaXCXaCa  ݳkIA`2WP TypographicSymbols d($      A!..      CaXCXaCa  _B.` hp x (#XB  X  X'Xa  1  A  ahX'TheRacketeerInfluencedandCorruptOrganizationsActof1970(_R.I.C.O._)iscodifiedas18U.S.C.  #a'a#1961.7o      % A!..      CaXCXaCa  B.` hp x (#XB  X  X'Xa  2  A  ahX'Whilenotrelevanttothemotionssubjudice,inordertopresentacompleteproceduralhistory,itshould  benotedthatLockheedunsuccessfullysoughtinjunctiverelieffromtheCaliforniafederalcourtagainstfurthersuit o pursuanttotheAllWritsAct,28U.S.C.#a'a#Ԁ1651.F.~      m A!..      CaXCXaCa  B.` hp x (#XB  X  X'Xa  3  A  ahX'ThecomplaintalsonamesasdefendantsDoes1through100,butthesedefendantshavenotbeen  identifiedorserved.X'Xa7oaXX'  A!..      CaXCXaCa  B.` hp x (#XB  X  X'Xa  4  A  ahX'AftertheCaliforniacourtdeniedtheinjunctivereliefLockheedsoughtundertheAllWritsAct,Lockheed  removedthiscasetotheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofMarylandonfederalquestiongrounds. o Becausethefederalquestionwasonlyraisedbywayofadefense,thecasewasremandedtostatecourt.F.~  A!..      CaXCXaCa  B.` hp x (#XB  X  X'Xa  5  A  ahX'TheaccompanyingMemorandumandOpinion,however,wasnotfileduntilMay6,1998.x      W A!..      CaXCXaCa  B.` hp x (#XB  X  X'Xa  6  A  aXX'PlaintiffobjectstotheCourt#a=a#sconsiderationofExhibit11(defendant#a=a#smotiontodismiss)forsummary  judgmentpurposes.Withoutaddressingtheobjectionsspecifically,theCourtindicatesthatitsdeterminationofthe  motionisnotpredicateduponthatdocument.mU       A!..      CaXCXaCa  B.` hp x (#XB  X  X'Xa  7  A  aXX'In2000,NewHampshirebroughtsuitagainstMaine#aAa#claimingthatthePiscataquaRiverboundaryruns  alongtheMaineshoreandthattheentireriverandallofPortsmouthHarborbelongtoNewHampshire.#a@a#ԀNew  Hampshirev.Maine,121S.Ct.1808,1812(2001).Mainecounteredbynotingthatintwopriorproceedings,onein W 1740decidedbyKingGeorgeIIandtheotheraconsentdecreeenteredin1977,theinlandriverboundaryhadbeen f concededbyNewHampshiretorunalongthemiddleoftheriver.Id.at1812.%kIAn`2WP TypographicSymbols       A!..      CaXCXaCa  B.` hp x (#XB  X  X'Xa  8  A  ahX'Further,LockheedassertsthatSemtekischargedwithfullknowledgeofthefactsregardingthis  defendantwhenitfiledsuitinMassachusettsin1995.TheCourtnotes,however,that,althoughthefederalcourtsin o CaliforniafixedthedateofMerkuriy#a=a#sbreach,August8,1994,asthedatethiscauseofactionaccrued,thatisnot .~ dispositivehereofthefactquestionastowhatSemtekactuallyknewaboutLockheed#a=a#sroleinthatbreach.?       A!..      CaXCXaCa  B.` hp x (#XB  X  X'Xa  9  A  ahX'Seeinfranote11.x       A!..      CaXCXaCa  B.` hp x (#XB  X  X'Xa  10  A  aXX'Thisanalysiswould,ofcourse,beessentialtoarulingthatjudicialestoppelappliestothissituation.  TheCourt#a=a#srulinghere,however,thatotherfactorsaremissingrendersitmoot.^ Q A!..      CaXCXaCa  B.` hp x (#XB X  X'Xa  11  A  ahX'TheCourtofAppealsnotedthat   X  ?( ` hp xX(#?#aAa#Generallyspeaking,apartywillnotbepermittedtooccupyinconsistentpositionsorto o takeapositioninregardtoamatterwhichisdirectlycontraryto,orinconsistentwith,one 0 previouslyassumedbyhim,atleastwherehehad,orwaschargedwith,fullknowledgeof ? thefactsandanotherwillbeprejudicedbyhisaction.#a@a#    X <( ` hp xX<ӀStonev.Stone,230Md.248,253(1962)(quoting19Am.Jur.,Estoppel,#a'a#Ԁ50).7 o            A!..      CaXCXaCa  B.` hp x (#XB  X  X'Xa  12  A  ahX'PlaintiffalsoreliesuponfiveaffidavitsinitsoppositiontoLockheed#a=a#smotiontodismiss.Thosewhich  addressthefactualpredicateforSemtek#a=a#sclaimsprovideadditionalsupportfortheCourt#a=a#srulingthatthereare q materialfactsindispute,prohibitingtheentryofsummaryjudgmentatthisstageintheproceedings.J2       "$)..      CaXCXaCa  X'XaB.` hp x (#XBaXX'  X'Xa  aXX'     (2$ A!..      CaXCXaCa  'Xa  0  #|x(r$..      CaXCXaCaHP LaserJet 5M,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularCXy/ h.<<U A!..      CaXCXaCa  _       !8add8 hB.` hp x (#XBX'Xa _SEMTEK_ԀINTERNATIONAL h   *  INTHE   X hE.` hp x (#X(#EINCORPORATED   HX hE.` hp x (#X(#EPlaintiff   h   *  CIRCUITCOURT   x  |  H hE.` hp x (#X(#E  hE.` hp x (#X(#Ev. `     h   *  FOR H  `  hE.` hp x (#X(#E . ~  `  hE.` hp x (#X(#ELOCKHEEDMARTIN   h   *  BALTIMORECITY,Part20  d  X hE.` hp x (#X(#ECORPORATION,etal.  J  HX hE.` hp x (#X(#EDefendants.   h   *  CaseNo.97183023/CC3762  0  0  0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#[2003_MDBT_Ԁ4]  (#(#  H hE.` hp x (#X(#E      pE. ` hp x (#X(#E*  * ` * *  * h *  *  * p *  *  * x *      p  E.` hp x (# X(#E MEMORANDUMANDOPINION  x    PROCEDURALHISTORY D   X  Thiscasearisesoutofanunconsummatedcommercialenterprisebetween_Semtek_ ` InternationalIncorporated(hereinafter#XDXXX'_AX'XX#XDSemtek_#XDXXX'@X'XX#XD)and_Merkuriy_,Ltd.(aRussianentity) , involvingthecommercializationofaformerSovietmilitarysatelliteandthelaunchofadditional  satellitesaspartofaninternationalcommunicationssystem. x $ l<` Plaintiff_Semtek_Ԁfiledsuitagainst_Merkuriy_,Ltd.and_Pyotr_Ԁ_Sivirin_ԀintheUnitedStates D DistrictCourtfortheDistrictofMassachusettsinAugust1995forfraud,_R.I.C.O._  _& %  1     _=A  violations, ` breachofcontract,breachofawrittenagencycontractandbreachoffiduciaryduties.Adefault , judgmentwasenteredonApril24,1996intheamountof$381,396,000.Thatjudgmentwas  vacatedonAugust13,1996sothatdefendantscouldbeproperlyserved.OnApril12,2000a t!  defaultjudgmentwasreenteredagainstdefendantsinthesameamount.Plaintiffhasnever @#"  collectedanyportionofitsjudgmentfromdefendants.  %\ $ 'Afterthefirstdefaultjudgmentwasentered,plaintiffservedasubpoenaducestecumon   LockheedMartinCorporation(hereinafter#XDXXX'_AX'XX#XDLockheed_#XDXXX'@X'XX#XD)atitscorporateofficeinJohnsonCity, | _NewYork.Lockheedfailedtoproducetherequesteddocumentsandplaintiffthensoughtan L orderintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheNorthernDistrictofNewYorkcompelling  h Lockheedtocomply.AshowcauseorderwasissuedonMarch11,1996bythefederalcourtin  4 NewYork.OnMay1,1996,thecourtdeniedwithoutprejudicetheplaintiff#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsrequesttocompel   compliance.Additionally,plaintifffiledamotiontocompelcompliancewiththesubpoenaon   March30,1999intheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofMassachusetts,andthe L  docketentriesindicatethatarenewedmotiontocompelwasfiledonApril21,1999,butwas h deniedonJune30,1999withoutprejudice. 4 OnFebruary26,1997,plaintifffiledsuitagainstLockheedMartinCorporationand  SamuelUrsini,etal.intheSuperiorCourtoftheStateofCaliforniafortheCountyofLos | Angeles.DefendantLockheedremovedthecasetotheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforthe H CentralDistrictofCaliforniaonMarch11,1997.Becausethetwoyearstatuteoflimitations d barredthesuit,thecourtgranteddefendant#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsmotiontodismissandthesuitwasdismissedwith 0 prejudiceonMay5,1997.TheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuitaffirmed  thejudgmentoftheDistrictCourtonFebruary25,1999.  ( %  2     A   |!  )Then,onJuly2,1997plaintifffiledsuitsolely  * %  3     A  againstLockheedMartinCorporationin H#" theCircuitCourtforBaltimoreCityforinducingabreachofcontract(CountI),intentional %d $  ') ' )' )  interferencewithprospectiveeconomicadvantage(CountII),negligentinterferencewith  prospectiveeconomicadvantage(CountIII),andconspiracytointerferewithprospective | economicadvantage(CountIV).Afteranunsuccessfulattempttoremovethecasetofederal H court,  + %  4     A  defendant#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsmotiontodismissonthegroundofresjudicatawasgrantedbyJudgeJoseph  d H.H.KaplanonApril30,1998.  , %  5     A  󀀀TheMarylandCourtofSpecialAppealsaffirmedJudge  4 Kaplan#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsdismissalonSeptember7,1999,statingthatthe#XDXXX'AX'XX#XDearlierdismissalofthesuitbythe   UnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheCentralDistrictofCaliforniawasajudgmentonthemerits   andwasentitledtothepreclusiveeffectthatJudgeKaplangaveit.#XDXXX'@X'XX#XDԀSemtekInt#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDlInc.v.Lockheed L  MartinCorp.,128Md.App.39,70(1999).TheCourtofAppealsdeniedapetitionforwritof l certiorarionDecember21,1999,buttheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtgrantedcertiorariandon 8 February27,2001,held   X 9 ?( ` hp xX(#?[b]ecausetheclaimpreclusiveeffectoftheCaliforniafederalcourt#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDs  dismissal#XDXXX'AX'XX#XDuponthemerits#XDXXX'@X'XX#XDԀofpetitioner#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsactiononstatuteoflimitations h groundsisgovernedbyafederalrulethatinturnincorporatesCalifornia#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDs P lawofclaimpreclusion(thecontentofwhichwedonotpassupontoday), 8 theMarylandCourtofSpecialAppealserredinholdingthatthedismissal n necessarilyprecludedthebringingofthisactionintheMarylandcourts.The T judgmentisreversed,andthecaseremandedforfurtherproceedingsnot : inconsistentwiththisopinion.    9 B.` hp x (#XBSemtekInt#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDlInc.v.LockheedMartinCorp.,121S.Ct.1021,1029(2001).    XWhenthemotionwasrenewedinthiscourt,itwasdeniedonNovember20,2001.The l"! presentmotiontodismissongroundsofjudicialestoppeland/orfailurestateaclaimwasthen 8$# filedonDecember7,2001,alongwithamotionforcostsandlegalexpensespursuantto &T!% MarylandRule1341.Afterreviewingthemotions,theoppositionsofplaintiff,thereply  memorandaandtheexhibitsattachedtotherespectivememoranda,theCourtconducteda | hearingonFebruary22,2002.ThisMemorandumandOpinionaddressesthemeritsofthe H defendant#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsmotions.  d  X- XE.` hp x (#X(#EII.  THESECONDMOTIONTODISMISS  4  X XE.` hp x (#X(#ESemtekcontendsthatthemotiontodismissnowbeforetheCourtmustbedeniedbecause   Lockheedhaswaiveditsrighttoraisethedefensescontainedthereinbyfailingtojointhose |  defensesinitsfirstpreliminarymotionunderMarylandRule2322.TheCourtdisagrees. H  Becausethedefenseofjudicialestoppelmayberaisedatanystageoflitigation,Gordon d v.Posner,2002Md.App.LEXIS18,*3435(2002),citingEaganv.Calhoun,347Md.72,88 0 (1997),andbecausethedefenseoffailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegrantedis  specificallypreservedpursuanttoMarylandRule2324,defendantisnotprecludedfromraising x thesedefensesinasecondmotiontodismiss.Moreover,becausethemotionnecessarily D requiresconsiderationofmattersoutsidethecomplaint,andbecausebothplaintiffanddefendant ` havepresentedtotheCourtpertinentmaterialgoingbeyondtheallegationscontainedinthe , complaint,theCourtshalltreatthepresentmotionasoneforsummaryjudgment,tobegoverned  byMarylandRule2501.  . %  6     S3X  TheCourtwill,therefore,addressthecontentionsraisedbythe t!  papersandpresentedbycounselatoralargument. @#"  X XE.` hp x (#X(#EIII.  THEJUDICIALESTOPPELDOCTRINE  %\ $ - - -  X/ XE.` hp x (#X(#EJudicialestoppel,whichprohibitslitigantsfromtakingadvantageofinconsistent   positionsindifferentcasestothedetrimentofopposingparties,therebycreatingtheperception | thateitherthefirstorthesecondcourtwasmisled,haslongbeenrecognizedintheMaryland H courts.SeeStonev.Stone,230Md.248,253(1962);Eaganv.Calhoun,347Md.72,8788  d (1997);Gordonv.Posner,2002Md.App.LEXIS18,*35(2002);Roanev.WashingtonCounty  0 Hosp.,137Md.App.582,592,cert.denied,364Md.463(2001);UnitedBookPress,Inc.v.    MarylandCompositionCo.,Inc.,141Md.App.460,469(2001). x  Recently,thedoctrinehasbeenappliedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourttopreclude D  theStateofNewHampshirefromassuminganinconsistentpositionagainsttheStateofMaine, ` withrespecttotheboundaryofthePiscataquaRiver.  0 %  7     5:X  󀀀Inthatcase,whichinvokedtheoriginal , jurisdictionoftheSupremeCourt,JusticeGinsburgnotedthatthejudicialestoppeldoctrinehas  longbeenrecognizedbyAmericancourts1Xlq XXX'A>X'X X1Xlqtoprotecttheintegrityofthejudicialprocess,#XDXXX'=@X'XX#XDԀby t #XDXXX'A>X'XX#XDprohibitingpartiesfromdeliberatelychangingpositionsaccordingtotheexigenciesofthe D moment.#XDXXX'=@X'XX#XDԀNewHampshirev.Maine,121S.Ct.1808,1814(2001)(citationsomitted).Further, d JusticeGinsburgidentifiedseveralfactorsgenerallypresentincaseswherecourtshaveinvoked 4 thedoctrine.Theseinclude:(1)aparty#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDslaterpositionmustbe#XDXXX'AX'XX#XDclearlyinconsistent#XDXXX'@X'XX#XDԀwithits  earlierposition;(2)thepartyhas#XDXXX'AX'XX#XDsucceededinpersuadingacourttoacceptthatparty#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsearlier !  position,sothatjudicialacceptanceofaninconsistentpositioninalaterproceedingwouldcreate P#" #XDXXX'>X'XX#XDtheperceptionthateitherthefirstorthesecondcourtwasmisled;#XDXXX'=@X'XX#XDԀand(3)theparty#XDXXX'AX'XX#XDseekingto %l $ / / /  assertaninconsistentpositionwouldderiveanunfairadvantageorimposeanunfairdetriment  ontheopposingpartyifnotestopped.#XDXXX'@X'XX#XDԀ121S.Ct.at1815(citationsomitted). | 2IntheFourthCircuit,the#XDXXX'AX'XX#XDdeterminativefactor#XDXXX'@X'XX#XDԀappearstobewhetherthepartywhois L allegedtobeestopped#XDXXX'AX'XX#XDintentionallymisledthecourttogainunfairadvantage.#XDXXX'@X'XX#XDԀTenneco  l Chems.,Inc.,v.WilliamT.Burnette&Co.,Inc.,691F.2d658,665(4thCir.1982);JohnS.  < ClarkCo.v.Faggert&Frieden,P.C.,65F.3d26(4thCir.1995);Loweryv.Stovall,etal.,92    F.3d219,225(4thCir.1996).   Inthepresentaction,LockheedseekstoestopSemtekfromassertingthatitintentionally P  interferedwithanycontractualrelationshiporeconomicadvantagebetweenplaintiffand l Merkuriy,Ltd.,sinceplaintifftookthepositionintheMassachusettslitigationthatMerkuriy, 8 Ltd.wassolelyresponsibleforperpetratingfrauduponSemtek,Lockheedbeinganinnocent  thirdpartytoMerkuriy#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsfraudulentacts.BecauseSemtekobtainedadefaultjudgmentinexcess  of$381,000,000againstMerkuriy,Ltd.inMassachusettsonthebasisoftheseallegations, P LockheedcontendsthatitshouldbeestoppedfrompresentingcontraryallegationsinaMaryland l court.Inessence,defendantassertsthatbecauseplaintiffwasunabletocollectanyofits 8 judgmentinMassachusetts,itshouldnotbepermittedtoalteritstheorymateriallyandproceed  againstanotherdefendantinMaryland,simplybecauseitismorelikelytocollectonany !  judgmentobtained.HavingmadeitselectiontoproceedagainstMerkuriy,Ltd.firstin L#" Massachusetts,LockheedarguesthatSemtekisforeclosedfromchangingitscoursenowin %h $ Maryland,simplybecauseitsearlierendeavorledittoadeadend.  3 %  8     Moac   &4"& 2 2 2  4TheCourtbelievesthatthedoctrineofjudicialestoppelisinapplicableunderthe  circumstancesofthiscase.Tobeginwith,LockheedconcedesthatSemtekneverintentionally | misledtheCourtineithertheMassachusettsorMarylandproceedings.Becausetheprimary H purposeofthejudicialestoppeldoctrineistoprotecttheintegrityofthejudicialprocessand  d becauseapartyisprecludedfrom#XDXXX'AX'XX#XDdeliberatelychangingpositions,#XDXXX'@X'XX#XDԀitisreasonabletoinferthat  0 thedoctrineappliesprincipallyincaseswhereacourtwasintentionallymisled.Maine,121S.   Ct.at1814.Ifthereisnodeliberateactinvolved,theintegrityofthejudicialprocessisless |  likelytobeimplicated.AstheCourtofSpecialAppealsnotedinPosner,judicialestoppel H  focusesontherelationshipbetweenthelitigantsandthejudicialsystem,whileequitableestoppel d concentratesontherelationshipbetweenthepartiesinvolved.Posner,2002Md.App.LEXIS 0 18,*3738(citingUnitedBookPress,141Md.App.at47172).Sincethefocusofjudicial  estoppelisnotmerelyontherelationshipbetweenparties,itisappropriatetorequirescienter x beforeapartyisdeemedjudiciallyestoppedfrombringingavaryingclaiminasubsequent D action.TheCourtofAppealshasrecognized,infact,thatapartycanonlybeestoppedifithad ` fullknowledgeofthefactsandthisprerequisitefurthersupportstheCourt#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsviewthatanintent , tomisleadisanecessarycomponentofjudicialestoppel.Stonev.Stone,230Md.248,253  (1962)(quoting19Am.Jur.,Estoppel,#XDXXX''X'XX#XDԀ50).  5 %  9     Voac   x!  Additionally,thepartiesarenotidenticalintheproceedingssoughttobecompared. H#" Whilethisismoretypicallyanissuewhicharisesuponanalysisofcollateralestoppelorissue %d $ preclusiondoctrines,itisrelevanttoinquirehowLockheedwasactuallydisadvantagedbythe &0"& defaultjudgmententeredagainstMerkuriy,Ltd.inthefederalcourtinMassachusetts.Counsel#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDs (#( 4 4 4  responsetothatquestionduringthehearingwastopointtotheenormousdefaultjudgment  enteredagainstMerkuriy,Ltd.anditsobviousimpactontheabilityoftheRussianenterpriseto | participatesuccessfullywithLockheedinthiscommercialventure,involvingthelaunchingand H developmentofasatellitecommunicationssystem.  d 6Semtekpointsoutthatbythetimethefinaldefaultjudgmentwasenteredbythe  0 Massachusettscourtin1997,Lockheed#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDscommercialventurewithMerkuriy,Ltd.waslong    dead.Ratherthanfocusonthespecificallegationswhichformedthebasesforthejudgmentin |  Massachusetts,  7 %  10     ]oac  SemtekwouldhavetheCourtfocusonthespecificprejudiceclaimedhereand H  whetheritcanbelinkedtotheinconsistentpositionssaidtobetakenbyplaintiffinthetwo d cases.SinceMerkuriy,Ltd.isnotclaimingthatitisprejudicedhere,plaintiffquestionshow 0 Lockheedwillbedisadvantagedindefendingtheallegationspresentedbythepresentcomplaint.  Underthecircumstancespresentedhere,theCourtfindsthatdefendantisunabletodemonstrate x directprejudice(otherthancontinuingthelitigation). D TheCourtofAppealsofMarylandhasrecognizedthesignificanceofprejudiceinthe ` judicialestoppelanalysis.Stonev.Stone,230Md.248,253(1962)(quoting19Am.Jur., , Estoppel,#XDXXX''X'XX#XDԀ50).  8 %  11     aoac  TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasexpresslystatedthatprejudiceto  anotherisamajorconsiderationwhendecidingwhetherjudicialestoppelshouldbeapplied. x!  6  6 6  Maine,121S.Ct.at1815.Marylandcaselawmaynotalwaysrequiredirectprejudiceagainst  thepartyassertingjudicialestoppel,but,initsabsence,therationaleforapplicationofthe | doctrinehasbeenintentionalmisconductonthepartoftheoffendingparty.See,e.g.,Wilsonv. H Stanbury,118Md.App.209,214215(1997).Sincebothofthesefactorsarelacking,theCourt  d isnotinclinedtobarplaintifffrompursuingitsclaimsinthiscase.  0  X9 XE.` hp x (#X(#EIV.  THEFAILURETOSTATEACLAIMUPONWHICHRELIEFMAYBEGRANTED     X XE.` hp x (#X(#ECountI.IntentionalInterferencewithContractualRelations x  Lockheedcontendsthatplaintiff#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsallegations,coupledwithalltherelevantdocuments D  whichhavebeenattachedtothevariousmemoranda,amounttonothingmorethan#XDXXX'AX'XX#XDan d agreementtoagree#XDXXX'@X'XX#XDԀonthepartofSemtekandMerkuriy,Ltd.Intheabsenceofalegally 4 enforceablecontractualagreementbetweenthoseparties,defendantcontendsthatnocauseof  actionwilllieunderCountIofthecomplaint.  Semtek#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsresponsetothiscontentionisthatitscourseofconduct,oralagreementswith L Merkuriy,Ltd.,thepartialperformanceonbothsidesandthedocumentation(whenallisfully l developedattrial)willestablishajointventureagreement,ifonecannotbediscernedatthis 8 stagefromthecomplaintandtheexhibitsnowbeforetheCourt.Attheveryleast,plaintiff  assertsthattheexistenceofajointventureagreementbetweenSemtekandMerkuriy,Ltd.poses !  adisputedquestionofmaterialfactforwhichsummaryjudgmentdispositionisinappropriate. L#" Withthelatterstatement,thisCourtagreesanditwilldenydefendant#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsmotionwithrespectto %h $ CountI. &8"& :UnderMarylandlaw,little,ifany,distinctionisdrawnbetweentheformationofa ($( partnershipandajointventure.Hobdeyv.Wilkinson,201Md.517,525527(1953).Inorderto *%*  9 :  9 :9 :  establisheither,#XDXXX'AX'XX#XDitisessentialtoshowthatthey[theparties]haveajointproprietaryinterest,or  thattheyaretosharelossesaswellasprofits,orthattheyhaveajointcontroloverthesubject  matteroftheadventureorofthemannerinwhichitistobecarriedout.#XDXXX'@X'XX#XDԀAtlasRealtyCo.v. L Galt,153Md.586,590(1927).TheMarylandCourtofAppealshasrecognizedthatajoint  l venturehasbeendefinedas#XDXXX'AX'XX#XDanassociationoftwoormorepersonstocarryoutasinglebusiness  8 enterpriseforprofit,#XDXXX'@X'XX#XDԀandas#XDXXX'AX'XX#XDapartnershipforasingletransaction.#XDXXX'@X'XX#XDԀHerring,etal.v.Offutt,266    Md.593,596597(1972)(citingJointAdventures,8Md.L.Rev.22(1943)).   InthejudgmentofthisCourt,theBusinessAgreement,ProtocolandLetterofIntent,the T  agencyagreementbetweenSemtekandMerkuriy,Ltd.andthecorrespondencebetweenthose  p partiesgiverisetoamaterialfactualdisputeastowhetherornotSemtekcanestablishajoint < ventureagreement.  ; %  12     GvCour    TheCourtisunpersuadedthatplaintiffisbarredfromestablishingajointventure  agreementbyvirtueoftheMarylandStatuteofFrauds,Md.CodeAnn.,Cts.&Jud.Proc.#XDXXX''X'XX#XD5 P 901(1993).Sincejointventuresandpartnershipsareessentiallyindistinguishableunder  p Marylandlaw,McBrietyv.Phillips,180Md.569,573574(1942)(citationsomitted),andsince < awrittenagreementisnotnecessarytocreateapartnership,M.Lit,Inc.v.Berger,225Md.241,  248(1961)(citationsomitted),theunderlyingtesthere(asinanallegedpartnershiprelationship !  withoutawrittenagreement)willbe#XDXXX'AX'XX#XDtheintentionoftheparties#XDXXX'@X'XX#XDԀtocreatesuchajointventure, P#"  Cohenv.Orlove,190Md.237,243(1948)(citationsomitted).  %p $ Ontheotherhand,thefactthattheCourtisunwillingtodismissSemtek#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDscomplaintin   itsentiretyshouldnotbereadasanadoptionofplaintiff#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsviewthattherecordbeforethisCourt,  forsummaryjudgmentpurposes,establishesajointventureagreementand/orinterferencewith P suchanagreementsufficienttosubmitthoseissuestoajury.Plaintiffwill,however,havean  l opportunitytodevelopitscasethroughdiscoveryandpresentadditionalrelevantevidenceat  8 trial.    CountII.IntentionalInterferencewithProspectiveEconomicAdvantage   <Havingdenieddefendant#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsmotionwithrespecttoCountI,theCourtisnotinclinedto L  grantitwithrespecttoCountII,atleastatthispointintheproceedings.IfSemtekisableattrial l togenerateajuryissueconcerningtheestablishmentofajointventurewithMerkuriy,Ltd.,then 8 itisconceivablethatcertainrelateddamageclaimsmaygotothejuryaswell.  Becausethisisasituationinwhichplaintiff#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDscaseisbuiltuponallegationsthatthe  defendantinterferedinsuchawayastopreventthecompletionofaformaljointventure P agreement,plaintiffmaybelimitedtotheconsequentialdamagesincurreduptothepointintime l whenitsrelationshipwithMerkuriy,Ltd.terminated. 8 Inordertogobeyondthatpoint,andtoestablishareasonableexpectationofeconomic  advantageforcompletionofthesatellitecommunicationenterprise,plaintiffwillundoubtedly !  facesignificantobstacles,nottheleastofwhichwillbeevidencepresentedbyLockheedthat L#" this#XDXXX'AX'XX#XDRussiansatelliteprojectwasanunmitigatedfinancialdisaster....#XDXXX'@X'XX#XDԀDefendant#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDs %h $ MemoranduminSupportofMotiontoDismiss,page2,n.2. &8"&  CountIII.NegligentInterferencewithProspectiveEconomicAdvantage ($( <  < <  SemtekconcedesthatMarylanddoesnotrecognizeacauseofactionfornegligent   interferencewithprospectiveeconomicadvantageand,accordingly,defendant#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsmotionwith | respecttoCountIIIis GRANTED . L CountIV.ConspiracytoInterferewithProspectiveEconomicAdvantage  h Semtekconcedesthattheallegationscontainedinthiscountareduplicativeofthose  4 containedinCountIIand,accordingly,defendant#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsmotionwithrespecttoCountIVis    GRANTED .    X XE.` hp x (#X(#EV.  LOCKHEED#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDSMOTIONFORCOSTSANDLEGALEXPENSESPURSUANTTO L   X XE.` hp x (#X(#EMARYLANDRULE1341  4  =!m8'XXdd8InlightoftheCourt#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsrulingsregardingLockheed#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsmotiontodismiss,itcannotsaythat  Semtekhasbroughtthiscaseinbadfaithorwithoutsubstantialjustificationatthistime.  BecausetheCourthasconcernsaboutplaintiff#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsabilitytoprosecutethisactionsuccessfully, L however,theCourtwillreserveondefendant#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsmotionforcostsandlegalexpensesuntilplaintiff  l hashadafullandfairopportunitytopresentevidenceinsupportofitsclaims.  <  X h򀀀(#(#K(#      `     h   ALBERTJ.MATRICCIANI,JR. j  Judge P   h  XE.` hp x (#X(#Ecc:  JackD.Lebowitz,Esquire l  X XE.` hp x (#X(#EVadimA.Mzhen,Esquire R  X XAndrewW.Zepeda,Esquire   X XLeslieN.Reizes,Esquire   X XFrancisB.Burch,Jr.,Esquire f AnthonyL.Meagher,Esquire L BrettIngerman,Esquire 2  X XRobertE.Willett,Esquire N RichardW.Buckner,Esquire 4 JessB.Frost,Esquire   X XThomasV.Girardi,Esquire    X XWalterK.Lack,Esquire b"! StevenC.Shuman,Esquire H#"  X  h  E.` hp x (#X(#E SEMTEKINTERNATIONAL h   *  INTHE &0"&  X hE.` hp x (#X(#EINCORPORATED '#'  HX hE.` hp x (#X(#EPlaintiff   h   *  CIRCUITCOURT (#(  H hE.` hp x (#X(#E  hE.` hp x (#X(#Ev. `     h   *  FOR x*%*   hE.` hp x (#X(#E ^+&+   hE.` hp x (#X(#ELOCKHEEDMARTIN   h   *  BALTIMORECITY,Part20   X hE.` hp x (#X(#ECORPORATION,etal.   X  E. ` hp x (#X(#EDefendants   h   *  CaseNo.:97183023/CC3762  |    E.` hp x (# X(#E  b  ****************************************************************************** H   Ӏ ORDER  . ~    X  UponconsiderationofdefendantLockheedMartinCorporation#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsmotiontodismissand  J motionforcostsandlegalexpenses,plaintiffSemtekInternational,Inc.#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsoppositionsthereto,the    replymemorandafiledbydefendant,theexhibitsattachedtotherespectivememorandaandthe   argumentsofcounselheardonFebruary22,2002,itisthis20thdayofMarch,2002,bythe f  CircuitCourtforBaltimoreCity,Part20, ORDERED asfollows: 2   X   E. ` hp x (#X(#E1. Defendant#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsmotiontodismissis GRANTED inpartand DENIED in N part,asmorefullysetforthintheaccompanyingMemorandumand  Opinionofthisdate.  2. TheCourt#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsrulingondefendant#XDXXX'=X'XX#XDsmotionforcostsandlegalexpenses f pursuanttoMarylandRule1341is RESERVED . 6 3. Defendantisorderedtofileananswertotheremainingcountsofthe R complaintwithinfifteen(15)daysofthedateofthisOrder. x    X E.` hp x (# X(#E    hX򀀀(#(#K(# f"!    `     h   ALBERTJ.MATRICCIANI,JR. L#" Judge 2$#  h>cc:  JackD.Lebowitz,Esquire %N!%  XVadimA.Mzhen,Esquire &4"&  X XAndrewW.Zepeda,Esquire ($(  X XLeslieN.Reizes,Esquire |*%*  X b+&+ > > >  XFrancisB.Burch,Jr.,Esquire  AnthonyL.Meagher,Esquire  BrettIngerman,Esquire |  X XRobertE.Willett,Esquire H RichardW.Buckner,Esquire . ~ JessB.Frost,Esquire  d  X XThomasV.Girardi,Esquire  0  X XWalterK.Lack,Esquire      StevenC.Shuman,Esquire    XaXX'