WPC  %4jg"Txv-* ۗxx<0Zm}C y xHWq.ȞQvWuHI* m|r/l0l,vmE ur(~0"klB#=΋@,M;P<9%͆8u<2鄿=ΑaoL]Z&&B۝ 1,GjLܔ/A%#F*5愰1{_'45/.ʼnVŭ[y&M/0wiBd_GSU>&d 0< 0<. 0njUFUJh 0x#UN %! M' (+ NS ^ U wa 4e y m{ \  `&Times New Roman' Semtek International, Inc thomast0thomast .   <:Default Para<:Footnote Ref< :Endnote TextXXX7\  `.Times New Roman TURkIA`2WP TypographicSymbols#|x(r$..       s:X Xs: s:HP LaserJet 5M,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular XHy/ h.yweb0U  !..       s:X Xs: s:  _       B.` hp x (#XBX$UXs:X$UXXX$U _Semtek_ԀInternational,Inc.v.LockheedMartinCorporation,etal,CaseNo.:  97183023/CC3762,2003_MDBT_Ԁ4(CircuitCourtforBaltimoreCity)(March20,2002)(per  AlbertJ._Matricciani_,Jr.) | Asonestepinacomplicatedhistory,plaintiff_Semtek_ԀfiledsuitagainstLockheedMartin H for(1)inducingabreachofcontract;(2)intentionalinterferencewithprospective . ~ economicadvantage;(3)negligentinterferencewithprospectiveeconomicadvantage;and  d (4)conspiracytointerferewithprospectiveeconomicadvantage.Afteranunsuccessful  J attempttoremovethecasetofederalcourt,Lockheedmovedtodismisstheactionin  0 BaltimoreCityCircuitCourt.JudgeJosephH.H.Kaplangrantedthemotiontodismiss    andtheCourtofSpecialAppealsaffirmed._Semtek_ԀInternationalv.LockheedMartin    Corporation,128Md.App.39(1999).TheSupremeCourtreversedthatjudgment.   _Semtek_,121S.Ct.1021(2001).Lockheedthenreneweditsmotiontodismiss,whichwas x  deniedbytheBaltimoreCityCircuitCourt. ^  Lockheedthenfiledasecondmotiontodismissonthegroundsofjudicialestoppeland/or *z  failuretostateaclaim. ` Held:Motiontodismissgrantedinpartanddeniedinpart. , Synopsis:LockheedX^MXXX$U =X$UXXX^M sjudicialestoppelargumentwasrejectedbecauseitdidnot  demonstratedirectprejudicenorintentionalmisconducton_Semtek_X^MXXX$U =X$UXXX^M spart.Thecourtdid  notdismisstheclaimforintentionalinterferencewithcontractualrelationsbecause x _Semtek_Ԁpossiblycouldprovetheexistenceofajointventure.Forsimilarreasons,thecourt ^ wasunwillingtodismisstheintentionalinterferencewithprospectiveeconomicadvantage. D Thenegligentinterferencewithprospectiveeconomicadvantageclaimwasdismissed *z becauseMarylanddoesnotrecognizethatcauseofaction.Thefourthcount,conspiracyto ` interferewithprospectiveeconomicadvantage,wasdismissedasduplicatingthosein F Count2. , Relatedcases:2003_MDBT_Ԁ5;2003_MDBT_Ԁ8;_Semtek_ԀInternationalv.Lockheed,No.1930  (SeptemberTerm2003)(CourtofSpecialAppeals).   s:XX$Us:s: