WPC0P 5XR}GDh=SFO[PP5Y4U&*==1c2Ӄ*aH-z;ȕ: EĴ+ cb o'BE7T4y [$?!NJFp(7X9@D>{}}$(M$vNBҞ:Jf(O'4Q뎲bw3پR"|$׋ Ւ}d$ZNwn^K)-HrLen9SA1Md'Cg=FED< >uDQt-^<:2vUcVl#"\`>o[/SmH9|–?/x8 vnU{ƽ@4P'57ú<ႎYOFtς s3@a@!^;M^wϖ # UN %+ 0(1 ^ Y we 4i }  m 1 72, 1u^ 72 0c 0wh 1 72f 0l 0D 0 1 72E 0w 1h 72 1! 72 0 0 0 0 0 0b 0A 0 0 0 0 0 0i 0J, 0v, 0`, 0`^- 0`- 0`. 0`~. 08. 0/ 02/ 00 0:1 0YP1 0_1 0 2 0j3 0|4 B*6 D/*6 D+Y6 06 D/8 078 069 0;9 0:C: 0^}: 0<:U6;U>M;U*; B;6;@@W&D }F2F?G ASISI 0DJ 0D]J 0DJ D5JKKNLLL D5L B7L B7.M.M.M BeM BMM B*M D5M D5M D53N BhN D5N BN D1N D5O D5=O D5rO B*O D5O B*PHP CLJ 5550DN PCL 60(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX($s4 [4:i+003|xU05CEKQW]cioAutoList1I.a.I.I.I.I.I.I. I.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(EhCEKQW]cioAutoList2a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.  5 ' tester0tester .   ((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  (UhCEKQW]cioAutoList3a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  (uhCEKQW]cioAutoList5I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.0eCEKQW]cioAutoList4a.I.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1   XXX   (&H2 XXX (&H3 XXX (&H4 XXX XXX(&H5 XXX (&H6 XXX 20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKV<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KV<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSW\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KV<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSW\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7L(X7  ?X%2A`Arial?  XXXSW\  `&Times New RomanS7M(X7&  d dK)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7O(X7  ?X%2A`Arial?  XXXSW\  `&Times New RomanS7M(X7K)2dxd0KS.SampleKV<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKV<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial d , $    5    _ݐXXSeePhilipMorris,Inc.v.Angeletti,358at74748wheretheCourtofAppealsorderedtheplaintiffclassin  amasstortcasedecertifieddue_to_Ԁthelackofcohesivenessoftheirissues.ThecourtruledthatMarylandlawwould t notnecessarilyapplytoallmembersoftheclasssincetheallegedinjuryinfact,nicotinedependence,#X4XݐV#ݐXX4 clearlymay 8  haveoccurredin_a_ԀstateotherthanMaryland.#X4Xݐ=#ݐXX4Eventhoughthiscaseinvolvedpersonalinjuryclaims,itprovides  evidencethatMarylandshighestcourtwouldlooktotheplacewheretheinjurywassufferedinanysuchchoiceof t lawanalysis.#X4Xݐ#   c"  _RobertE._Willett_,Esquire  RichardW._Buckner_,Esquire  JessB.Frost,Esquire  _OMelveny_Ԁ&Meyers,_L.L.P._  400SouthHopeStreet  LosAngeles,California90071  ThomasV._Girardi_,Esquire tt _Girardi_Ԁ&Reese `` 1126WilshireBoulevard LL  LosAngeles,California90017 8 8  WalterK.Lack,Esquire    StevenC._Shuman_,Esquire   _Engstrom_,_Lipscomb_Ԁ&Lack   10100SantaMonicaBoulevard   Suite800  BeverlyHills,California90067 M $    4    _ԀݐXXOnDecember7,2001,LockheedarguedsuccessfullyinitsmotiontodismissthatSemteksCountIII  failedtostateacauseofactionunderMarylandlaw.LockheedwasalsosuccessfulinitsmotiontodismissCountIV  becausetheallegationscontainedinthatcountareduplicativeofthosecontainedinCountII.Itnowseeksto ` proceedunderthelawofMassachusetts.#X4XݐU#1293-6 ( $    1    _ݐXXForproceduralhistory,seethiscourtsearlieropiniononLockheedsmotiontodismiss,issuedMarch20,  2002,pp.13.#X4XݐS# 5 $    3    _ݐXXFordiscussionofjudicialestoppel,seethiscourtsearlieropiniononLockheedsmotiontodismiss,issued  March20,2002,pp.48.#X4XݐS#bcdefE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  YYYY)!dxdx $    2    _ݐXXSeeamendedpretrialschedulingorderfiledNovember28,2001.#X4XݐS#ԁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5mnmn)!dxdx3+0 d d d3+0 d d d  dP Pd&P d dqqqq)!dxdxrrrr)!dxdxxxxx)!dxdx dzzzz)!dxdx drr)! dxdxKKKK)!dxdxtttt)!dxdx)!dxdx&p d Pd)!dxdx&p Pd d !  _84XXdd8_SEMTEK_ԀINTERNATIONAL0 h   *0h(#h(#INTHE(#(# INCORPORATED     `     h   *0  CIRCUITCOURT(#(#    ` Plaintiff t v.   `     h   *0  FOR`(#(# LOCKHEEDMARTINCORPORATION  *0  BALTIMORECITY8 (#(#    ` Defendant   h 0  *0(#(#Part20 `(#(#      `     h   *0  CaseNo.:97183023/CC3762 8 (#(#    `       `     h   *   ******************************************************************************     @ MEMORANDUMANDOPINION     (503 "3"    325  I  .3  0 `   CaseSummary3݌\` (#` (# Ќ    Thiscasearisesoutofanunconsummatedcommercialenterprisebetween_Semtek_ 4 InternationalIncorporated(hereinafter _Semtek_)and_Merkuriy_,Ltd.(aRussianentity)involving  \ thecommercializationofaformerSovietmilitarysatelliteandthelaunchofadditionalsatellites 4 aspartofaninternationalcommunicationssystem._ #  1      ׀     OnAugust9,2002,pursuanttoSection10504oftheCourtsandJudicialProceedings  ArticleoftheAnnotatedCodeofMaryland,Lockheedfiledanoticeofintentiontorelyonthe l lawofMassachusetts._Semtek_ԀfiledamotiontoprecludeLockheedfromseekingapplicationof D! MassachusettslawonNovember12,2002,andonDecember2,2002,Lockheedfiledits #l! oppositionto_Semtek_smotion._Semtek_sreplyinsupportofitsmotiontoprecludeapplication $D # ofMassachusettslawwasfiledonDecember17,2003. &"% "3"    3 25  II  .3  0 `   TheStatutoryRequirementofNotice3 ݌(#'` (#` (# Ќ    MarylandLawprovidesthat:  0  S+ SWX4XXXApartymayalsopresenttothetrialcourtanyadmissibleevidenceofforeignlaws,but,to + enableapartytoofferevidenceofthelawinanotherjurisdictionortoaskthatjudicial  noticebetakenofit,reasonablenoticeshallbegiventotheadversepartieseitherinthe k pleadingsorbyotherwrittennotice.3 (#(# b Md.CodeAnn.[_Cts_.&_Jud_.Proc.]10504. i    Withoutcitingauthority,_Semtek_ԀarguesthatLockheedfailedtoprovidereasonablenotice L   ofitsintenttorelyonMassachusettslaw.Marylandcourtshaveinterpretedreasonablenotice ,  liberally.See,e.g.,Morrisv.Peace,14Md.App681,68586(1972)(#X4XXWX43 #WX4XXX4noticeofintenttorelyon l  foreignlawwasreasonablewhengivenonedaybeforetrial,andthetrialjudgeindicateda L  willingnesstograntacontinuanceinordertoavoidsurprise),_Parkside_Ԁv._Linder_,252Md.271,  273(1969)(noticedeemedinadequatewheredefendant receivednonoticeofappellants l intentiontorelyonforeignlaw).Undertheuniquecircumstancesofthiscase,theCourt  believesthat#X4XXWX4$#WX4XXX4ԀLockheedsnoticeisreasonable. <   _Semtek_ԀarguesthatithasbeenprejudicedbyLockheedsdelayinfilingnotice.Again,no o authorityiscited._Semtek_ԀpointstoLockheedsacknowledgmentthatnoticemaybefiledupto  thestartoftrial providedthatthereisnoprejudicetotheotherparty.LockheedBr.at4. ? PrejudiceintheoutcomehasnotspecificallybeensetforthinMarylandcaselaw,however,asa  _criterian_Ԁfordeterminingreasonablenotice.Rather,itisimperativethatnounfairsurprisewould _ ! resultfromatardynoticeofintenttorelyonforeignlaw._Frericks_Ԁetalv.GeneralMotors !?# Corp.,274Md.288,297(1975).#X4XXWX4#ԀInthiscase,_Semtek_Ԁhasnotbeenunfairlysurprisedsincethe #% trialisnotscheduledtotakeplaceuntilApril4,2003g #  2      ׀andthepartieshavemadeajointrequest %_ ' tothecourttocontinuethetrialdateuntilSeptember22,2003.Discoveryisstillongoingand &!) cannotbecompletedpursuanttotheoriginalschedule.Again,underthecircumstances /(#+ presented,theCourtfindsthatLockheedhascompliedwith10504oftheCourtsandJudicial )%- _ProceedingsArticle.   (uh80 ! !"3"    3"2uh  III  .3  0 `   JudicialEstoppel3"[݌` (#` (# Ќ    ItiswellestablishedinMarylandthat WX4XXX4apartywillnotbepermittedtooccupy v inconsistentpositionsortotakeapositioninregardtoamatterwhichisdirectlycontraryto,or  V inconsistentwith,onepreviouslyassumedbyhim,atleastwherehehad,orwaschargeablewith,   fullknowledgeofthefactsandanotherwillbeprejudicedbyhisaction.Stonev.Stone,230 & v  Md.248,253(1962),Gordonv.Posner,142Md.App.399,426(2002).#X4XXWX4H#` #  3      ׀Judicialestoppel   prohibitslitigantsfromtakingadvantageofinconsistentpositionsindifferentcasestothe F  detrimentofopposingparties,therebycreatingtheperceptionthateitherthefirstorthesecond &  courtwasmisled.SeeStone,230Md.at253;Eaganv.Calhoun,347Md.72,8788(1997); f Gordon,WX4XXX4142Md.App.at#X4XXWX4 #428;Roanev.WashingtonCountyHosp.,137Md.App.582,592,cert. F denied,364Md.463(2001);UnitedBookPress,Inc.v.MarylandCompositionCo.,Inc.,141  Md.App.460,469(2001). f   Recently,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtexplainedthatthepurposeofthejudicial I estoppeldoctrineis toprotecttheintegrityofthejudicialprocess,by prohibitingparties  fromdeliberatelychangingpositionsaccordingtotheexigenciesofthemoment.New i Hampshirev.Maine,121S.Ct.1808,1814(2001)(citationsomitted).TheCourtidentified   severalfactorsgenerallypresentincaseswherecourtshaveinvokedthedoctrine,including:(1)a 9 " partyslaterpositionmustbe clearlyinconsistentwithitsearlierposition;(2)thepartyhas !$  succeededinpersuadingacourttoacceptthatpartysearlierposition,sothatjudicialacceptance Y#& ofaninconsistentpositioninalaterproceedingwouldcreatetheperceptionthateitherthefirst $9 ( orthesecondcourtwasmisled;and(3)theparty seekingtoassertaninconsistentposition y&!* wouldderiveanunfairadvantageorimposeanunfairdetrimentontheopposingpartyifnot  (Y#, estopped.121S.Ct.at1815(citationsomitted).    FourthCircuitcasesidentifythe determinativefactoras intentionallymis[leading]the  courttogainunfairadvantage.TennecoChems.,Inc.,v.WilliamT.Burnette&Co.,Inc.,691 #s F.2d658,665(4thCir.1982);JohnS.ClarkCo.v.Faggert&Frieden,P.C.,65F.3d26(4thCir.   1995);Loweryv.Stovall,etal.,92F.3d219,225(4thCir.1996). S C    Lockheedappearstohaveoccupiedinconsistentpositions.] #  4      ׀Thiscourtisnotawareof  k  anyadvantagethatLockheedwouldgainthroughtheapplicationofforeignlaw,however,nor C  doesithaveanyevidencetosupportafindingofintentionality.Consequently,defendantisnot   estoppedfromrelyingonMassachusettslaw.   "3"    3+2uh  IV  .3  0 `   LexLociDelicti3+R+݌{` (#` (# Ќ    BothpartiesagreethatMarylandhasadoptedthelexlocidelictichoiceoflawapproach, S underwhichthecourtusesthelawofthejurisdictionwherethewrongtookplace.While +{ plaintiffconcedesthat Marylandcourtshavenotyetspecificallyspokenastotheissueofwhere S thewrongoccursincasesofpecuniaryinjury,BancaCremiv.Brown,955F.Supp.499,522 + (D.Md.1997),itusesfederalandoutofstatelawtosupportitscontentionthatthe wrongin  thiscasecanbedefinedasthelastactnecessarytocompletethetort.MidAtlanticTelecom,Inc.  v.LongDistanceServices,Inc.32Va.Cir.75(1993),InsuranceCompanyofNorthAmerica, c!  Inc.v.UnitedStatesGypsumCo.,639F.Supp.1246,124849(W.D.Va.1986).Semtekalleges ;#" thatLockheedghostwrotethefacsimilesentfromSirivininRussiafromitsBethesda,Maryland %c $ location.ItfurtherallegesthathighlevelMarylandbasedexecutivesdiscussed thecommercial &;"& developmentoftheRussiansatellitesaswellashowtoovercometheRussianscontractual  commitmenttoSemteksmarketingthatsatellitecapacityatameetinginBethesda.Affidavitof  StevenShuman,SemtekExhibit1,p.2.Characterizingtheseactsasthelastactsnecessaryto ` completethetort,SemtekwouldhavethiscourtapplyMarylandlaw. 8    LockheedurgesthiscourttoapplyMassachusettslaw,sinceitisthehomestateofthe  ` plaintiffandthereforewherethefinancialinjurywassuffered.Lockheedarguesthatthis  8  approachhasbeenpronouncedasthelawinMaryland,PhilipMorris,Inc.v.Angeletti,358Md.   689(2000),Johnsonv.OrowheatFoodsCo.,785F.2d503(4thCir.1986),andprovidesfederal   andoutofstateauthorityindicatingasimilarinterpretation.See,e.g.,RhonePoulencAgroS.A. p v.MonsantoCo.,73F.Supp.2d554,555(M.D.N.C.1999)(holdingthat thestatewherethe H injuryoccurredinafraudclaimisthestateinwhichtheplaintiffsufferedtheeconomicimpact);  p Glassv.SouthernWreckerSales,990F.Supp.1344,1348(M.D.Ala.1998)(  SWX4XXX4courtsconsistently H concludethatthestatewheretheinjuryoccurredinafraudclaimisthestateinwhichthe  plaintiffsufferedtheeconomicimpact.);ManagementScienceAmerica,Inc.v.NCRCorp.,#X4XXWX4=6#WX4XXX4765 h F.Supp.738,740(1991) S#X4XXWX47#WX4XXX4Ԁ( #X4XXWX438#WX4XXX4Federalcourtsapplyingthelawoftheseforumstofraud% ^ %^8Ԁclaims  consistentlyhaveconsideredthetorttohavebeencommittedinthestatewheretheeconomic 8 lossoccurredandnotwherethefraudulentmisrepresentationsweremade#X4XXWX4{8#.).      InPhilipMorris,Inc.v.Angeletti,358at746,theCourtofAppealscitedJohnsonv. "" OrowheatFoodsCo.,785F.2dat511,toillustratethepointthatunderMarylandslexlocidelicti x$$ conflictoflawjurisprudence,theplaceoftheinjuryistheplacewheretheinjurywassuffered, P&!& notwherethewrongfulacttookplace.Z #  5      ׀SeveralfederalcasesspecificallyapplyingMaryland ((x#( law,inadditiontothosecitedbyLockheed,havecometothesameconclusion.See,e.g.,  GeorgetownCollegev.Madden,505F.Supp.577,569(D.Md.1980)( WX4XXX4Intortactions,  Marylandappliesthedoctrineoflexlocidelicti;theapplicablesubstantivelawisthelawofthe ` placeofthewrong,i.e.,thelawofthestateinwhichtheinjuryoccurs.),Upgrenv.Executive 8  AviationServices,Inc.326F.Supp.709,71112(#X4XXWX4,=#D.Md.WX4XXX4Ԁ1971),quotingAnnotation,77ALR2d  ` 1266(1961)at1273(  S#X4XXWX4>#WX4XXX4thegeneralruleisthattheplaceofthetort...isE  theplacewheretheinjury  8  ordeathwasinflictedE?  ݀andE  nottheplacewheretheallegedlywrongfulactoromissiontook x  place). X    AlthoughthelexlocidoctrineinMarylandasappliedtotortcasesinvolvingpecuniary ; injuryisunclear,#X4XXWX4t?#seeBancaCremiv.BrownWX4XXX4,supra,thiscourtwillapplyanalogouschoiceoflaw { principlestotheinstantcase.Theseprinciplesdictatethattheplaceofinjuryistheplacewhere  [ theharmwassustained.Accordingly,Massachusettslawwillbeapplied,sinceSemtekalleges  financialharmtoitsbusiness,whichislocatedthere. +{ #X4XXWX4A#Eg@  "3"    3C2uh  V  .3  0 `   Conclusion3CC݌^` (#` (# Ќ    Lockheedhascompliedwiththerequirementsof10504oftheCourtsandJudicial A ProceedingsArticlebyprovidingreasonablenotice.Judicialestoppelisnotapplicableheresince  thereisnoevidenceofintentionalityorunfairadvantage.Thelexlocidelictidoctrineprovides  a  thatthelawofthejurisdictioninwhichtheinjurywassustainedshouldbeapplied.Here,the !" pecuniaryharmwasfeltinMassachusetts,sothelawofthatstateapplies.Accordingly,plaintiff 1#$ SemteksmotiontoprecludedefendantLockheedfromseekingapplicationofMassachusettslaw $ & is DENIED . Q&!( _ 4(#*      `     h     򀀀 Y     `     h     ALBERTJ._MATRICCIANI_,JR. t     `     h     Judge      `     h     February11,2003    cc:0  0 (#(# JackD._Lebowitz_,Esquire K  _va\>.*lt `E~,<<~,<v_ ~~(#(#VadimA._Mzhen_,Esquire f  _Lebowitz_Ԁ&_Mzhen_,_L.L.C._ 1 10CrossroadsDrive L Suite105 g _Owings_ԀMills,Maryland21117  AndrewW._Zepeda_,Esquire  _Lurie_Ԁ&_Zepeda_ # 9107WilshireBoulevard > Suite800  Y BeverlyHills,California90210 $t LeslieN._Reizes_,Esquire Z _Reizes_ԀLawFirm,Chartered u  1177GeorgeBushBoulevard,Suite308 ! _Delray_ԀBeach,FL33483 " FrancisB.Burch,Jr.,Esquire $1  AnthonyL.Meagher,Esquire %L! Brett_Ingerman_,Esquire 'g"  Piper_Rudnick_,_L.L.P._ 2(#! 6225SmithAvenue M)$" Baltimore,Maryland21209 h*%#  (#(#~~ +&$ _ԇ