WPC\ wiI4 |dh }:,5l}䅂iI)vNm [ 늵P)YX%,J8.ݍlhݣih6meB JMSjݎndy1dZg)(Gz ˈG kkă֜7ٖ[VFRwf]CAH!'ZA3Sm~)^R5;TID(xf/SѽΖE dsmwӊLG=K&S{'GɤޙY!cg#!kO$[f:)լ # VZDëLnK$ǚbO>ߤ㦇fYGmΔVY:wؽIPT`AΪ{߈SB[j#H+¿z79"0޷͂: ݜٗ$SXNkhn`C<DXjU. 0rU>D 0 < 0 0:F 0< 0 U>` U6 B 0C I4 } 002 0B#UN %M(N^ w+4/C mE<6X9`(Courier' TREACY A crebbert0crebbert .   <SC:Default ParaS\  `&Times New RomanSC<6X9`(CourierC\  `&Times New Roman<:Footnote Ref0A .Footer  (#A7X` hp x (#A:8Page Number< :Footnote Tex   6)..      ]XX)]  !  (#X!  ])XX] XXXX$  (# X$  &      ]X X) ](26$ r!..      ]XX)]  \  `&Times New Roman<6X9`(Courier New d($     ? r!..      ]XX)]   X?+` ` hp x X?   X      1  >  ݀Wilmerv.Philadelphia&ReadingCoalandIronCo.,124Md.599,611(1915)(quotingWakemanv.Kingslandetal.,18Atl.  680(1889)).  r!..      ]XX)]   X?+` ` hp x X?   X        2  J  ݀ThisCourtdoesalsorecognizethatinsomecases,theremayneed  tobeestablishedanefficientandorderlywaytoadjudicatethe x issuesontheinterpleaderclaimwhenthoseissuesmaybepresent @ inotherpendingorimpendinglitigationbetweentheparties. X Mechanismssuchasconsolidation,stay,ortransfermaybeemployed   toinsurethattheissuesareheardinafairandorderlyfashion.  (24$ r!..      ]XX)]  ))  0  #|x(rr$..      ]XX)]HP LaserJet 5M,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX'1 aa0yweb0 U r!..      ]XX)]  _       8)dd8   X)) X۹XX)SALTZMAN&JABLON,LLC*   p INTHE  Ѐ     ` Plaintiff   h   *   p CIRCUITCOURT v vs.  *   p FOR < Ѐ  o EASTERNSTEELCONSTRUCTORS  *   p HOWARDCOUNTY  R and  5 CHARLESW.ROBINSON,ESQ.  *      `    ` Defendants h   *   p CaseNo.13C0355735OC    ********* T  0p x (#X0Q<< MEMORANDUMANDORDER j  H.` hp x (#X(#H  B+ ` hp x (#X(#B  OnJuly7,2003,Saltzman&Jablon,LLC,aHowardCountylaw 0 firm,filedaComplaintForInterpleaderunderMarylandRule2  221namingaspartiesEasternSteelConstructors,Inc. l ( Eastern)andCharlesW.Robinson,Esquire( Robinson).In 2 theComplaint,Saltzman&Jablon,LLC,assertedthat,asofApril H 7,2003,itcameintopossessionof$534,103.46whichit  describedas judgmentproceedsthathadbeenawardedtoEastern  inalawsuitinErieCounty,Pennsylvania.  Theproceeds J resultedfromamonetaryjudgmententeredbytheCourtofCommon !`  PleasofErieCounty,Pennsylvania,inalawsuitbyEastern "&" againstSt.PaulMercuryInsuranceCompanyoverasuretybond $$ givenbyWhippleAllenConstructionCompanytoinsurepaymentsto b&!& subcontractors.WhippleAllenhademployedEasternasa ((x#( subcontractoronaconstructionprojectforSt.VincentHospital )>%* inErie,Pennsylvania,andhadfailedtopayEasternforwork +', done.Robinson,alongwithMr.BrianS.Jablon,represented  EasternintheErieCountylitigation. v  XE.` hp x (#X(#EAccordingtotheComplaint,Robinsonassertedthathewas < entitledtobepaidattorneysfeesfromthejudgmentproceeds.  R Apparently,bothEasternandRobinsonauthorizedSaltzman&   Jablon,LLC,toserveasescrowagentregardingtheproceedsand    toreceiveandholdthemwhileMr.Jablon,actedasan informal T  mediatorofthedisputebetweenEasternandMr.Robinson. j  TheComplaintfurtherassertsthatthepartieswereunable 0 toagreeonthedispositionoftheproceeds,anditisfurther  allegedthatMr.Robinsonwasassertinganattorneyslienonthe l entireproceedsandthatEasternwasdemandingatleast 2 $204,769.55beimmediatelyreleasedtoit. H Saltzman&Jablon,LLC,askedtheClerkofCourttotake  possessionoftheproceedspendingresolutionofthedisputeand  dischargeitfromanyfurtherliabilityuponthedepositofthe J proceedswiththecourt.AfterahearingonDecember3,2003, !`  theCourtgrantedtheinterpleaderrequestandenteredanorder "&" thatSaltzman&Jablon,LLC,distributetoEastern$204,769.65, $$ thisamounthavingbeendeterminednotreasonablysubjectto b&!& dispute.Thebalance,$329,401.13,wasordereddepositedwith ((x#( theClerkoftheCourt. )>%* EasternwasthendesignatedasthePlaintiffforpurposeof +', interpleading,andRobinsonwasdesignatedasaDefendantasto  theirrespectiveclaimstotheproceeds.Aschedulewas v establishedforthefilingofpleadingsandanswersconcerning < claimstothefund.  R OnJanuary6,2004,Easternfileditscomplaintasserting   twelvecountsagainstRobinson.InCount1,entitled Claimin    InterpleaderforEasternsJudgmentProceeds,Easternasserts T  thatthejudgmentproceedsatissue belongtoEastern,andto j  Easternonly,andRobinsonhasnoclaimorrighttoanyofthese 0 proceedsortoanyoftheinterestthereon.Easternfurther  assertsthatRobinson hasnointerestinEasternsJudgment l Proceeds,norhasheperfectedanylienonthoseProceeds.As 2 tothiscount,Easternsoughtpaymenttoitofthefunds H depositedwiththeClerkoftheCourt.  Besidesthisclaim,Easternfiled11othercounts:   XE.` hp x (#X(#ECountII(Conversion/WrongfulTaking) J CountIII(BreachofFiduciaryDuty) !`  CountIV(ConstructiveFraud) "&"  # # CountV(BreachofContract[theRetainerAgreement $$ with % %  XE. ` hp x (#X(#ERobinson]) b&!&  X E.` hp x (# X(#E X XE.` hp x (#X(#ECountVI(TortsArisingfromBreachofContract) ((x#(  X XE.` hp x (#X(#E X XE.` hp x (#X(#ECountVII(BreachoftheCovenantofGoodFaithand )>%* Fair *!&+  XE. ` hp x (#X(#EӀDealing) +',  X E.` hp x (# X(#E ,'-  X XE.` hp x (#X(#ECountVIII(Concealment/NonDisclosure/Deceit)   X XE.` hp x (#X(#E X XE.` hp x (#X(#ECountIX(IntentionalMisrepresentation) v  X XE.` hp x (#X(#E X XE.` hp x (#X(#ECountX(NegligentMisrepresentation) <  X XE.` hp x (#X(#E X XE.` hp x (#X(#ECountXI(IntentionalInflictionofEmotional  R Distress)  5  X XE.` hp x (#X(#E X XE.` hp x (#X(#ECountXII(ProfessionalMalpractice)     XE.` hp x (#X(#EAstothesecounts,Easternseekscompensatorydamagesin q  amountsthatexceedanyamountthecourtholds.Withthe 7  exceptionofCountV,Easternalsoseeksastoeachcount M  punitivedamagesintheamountof$5,000,000.  RobinsonmovedtodismissCountsIIthroughXIIforlackof  personalandsubjectmatterjurisdiction,assertingthatthis O Courtlackssubjectmatterandpersonaljurisdictionastothese e claims.RobinsonalsofiledanAnswerandCounterclaim.Inhis + counterclaim,Mr.RobinsonassertsinCountI,whichheentitles   BreachofContract,thathe hasanequitableinterestin g and/orpossessoryrighttoand/orisentitledtodistributionto - } himofthefundondepositwiththecourt.InCountII,entitled !C!  EquitableRelief,Robinsonagainassertsthathe hasan # # equitableinterestinand/orpossessoryrighttoand/oris % % entitledtodistributiontohimofthefundondepositwiththis E'"' Court.  )[$) EasternmovedtodismissCountIIofRobinsonsCounterclaim *!&+ forfailuretostateaclaim,assertingthatequitablereliefis ,'- notarecognizedcauseofactioninMaryland.   X  AhearingwasheldonthesemotionsonMarch18,2004. v  XAninterpleaderactionisanequitableprocedureprovided < forbytheMarylandRulestoresolvedisputesamongthosewho  R  claimormayclaimtobeentitledtoproperty.Rule2221(a).   UnderthisRule,whenaninterpleaderisallowed,oneofthe    claimantsisdesignatedtheplaintiffandisallowedtofilea T  complaint settingforththeclaimofthatplaintifftothe j  property.Rule2221(d).Thelitigationsoinitiatedmustbe 0  withrespecttothepropertythatisinthecourt.Niemeyer  andSchuett,MarylandRulesCommentary,ThirdEdition,p.155. l Athresholdquestioniswhetheraninterpleaderactionunder 2 Rule222lprovidescontendingclaimantsacomprehensiveplatform H fromwhichtheymayormustlitigateallclaimsthattheyhave  betweenoramongthemselves,regardlessofwhethertheyare  claimsofentitlementtothespecificpropertybeforethecourt. J EasternapparentlytakestheviewthattheRulesoallows,since !`  itseekstobringtentortclaimsandonebreachofcontract "&" claiminadditiontoitsclaimtothejudgmentproceeds.Eachof $$ thetortclaimsseekscompensatorydamagesandpunitivedamages. b&!& Noneoftheseclaimsassertinanywaythatthepropertybefore ((x#( theCourtiscurrentlyattachedorimpressedwithanownership )>%* interestbecauseoftheseclaims.Instead,thesecountsseek +', judgmentsofmoneydamagesagainstRobinsonindependentofthe  claimedrightofEasterntothepropertybeforetheCourt. v Therightofeitherpartytorecoverinaninterpleader < actiondependsonthepartystitletothefund.Rockwellv.  R CarrollPrinting&PublishingCo.,191Md.542,547(1948),   Wetzelv.Collin,170Md.383(1936),Scottv.Marden,153Md.14    (1927).InRockwell,thecourtdeterminedthatapreferred T  creditorwhohadaclaimunderacontractualarrangementwitha j  newspaperpublishercouldnotusethatclaimtosupportaright 0 toclaimoninterpleadedfundsowedtothenewspaperbyan  advertiserthatwereotherwiseclearlyduetothenewspaperfor l servicesprovided.Asthecourtstates: 2  X  XB+` ` hp x X(#BWhathisrightsmaybeasagainsttheappellee H dependonanumberofotherfactorswhichcannot + bedeterminedinaninterpleadercase.The  appelleemaybeentirelysolvent,inwhichcasehe  cansueforhisdebt.Itmaybeinsolvent,in  whichcasehecanaskforareceiver.Theappellee g mayhaveothercreditorswhoareentitledtoshare J inanyassets,andthequestionofthevalidityof - } itsagreementtoturnoverallofitsreceiptsto !`  theappellantwouldhavetobedeterminedinthe !C! lightoftherightsofothercreditors,ifany. "&"  Allofthesequestionsgofarbeyondthepurpose # # ofaninterpleaderproceedingwhichismerelyto $$ determinewhoisentitledtocollectthefundfrom % % theoriginalcomplainant.  b&!&   XE.` hp x (#` X ERockwell,191Md.at548(emphasisadded). ((x#(  XCaseslikeRockwellclearlyindicatethatinterpleader )>%* actionsarenotvehiclestofreezeafundforpotentialfuture +', collectioneffortsonclaimsamongthepartiesunrelatedto  actualentitlementtoownershipofthefunditself.Allof v EasternsclaimsrepresentedbyCountsIItoXIIarejustsuch < claims.Theyareinchoate,unliquidatedclaimsagainstRobinson  R forcompensatoryandpunitivedamages.Noneofthesestatea   claimthatshowsentitlementtothefundbeforethisCourtor    thatthefundisimpressedinanywaywithaninterestEastern T  hasonthefundbecauseoftheseclaims.Theseareallclaims j  thatmustbelitigatedtojudgmentandappropriatelevies 0 accomplishedbeforetheyhaveanypurchaseontheassetsbefore  theCourt. l InargumentbeforetheCourt,Easternreferencedthe may 2 claimlanguageofRule2221(a)andindicatesthatthesewords H denotethataclaimcanbebroughtagainstthefundthatisnot  presentlyestablishedoradjudicated.Itiscertainlytruethat  aclaimagainstafunddoesnothavetobepredicatedona J previouslyadjudicateddetermination.Faulknerv.American !`  Casualty,85Md.App.595,623(1991).However,aclaim,evenif "&" notperfected,mustbe anassertionofarighttocertain $$ property.Id.at624.Merelystatingthatapartywouldlike b&!& tohaveassetsbeforethecourtfrozenuntilthepartycangeta ((x#( judgmentonitscontractandtortclaimstothenfinallylevyan )>%* attachmentonthefundsdoesnotstateanentitlementtothefund +', asenvisionedbytheinterpleaderrule.Suchanoutcomewouldbe  awholesaleexpansionoftheprejudgmentattachmentstandardsof v Rule2115andCourtsandJudicialProceedingsArticle,Sections < 3302to305.Thereisnoindicationinthetextorhistoryof  R Rule2221thatinterpleaderpracticewasintendedtocreatesuch   anexpansionoftraditionalrestraintsonprejudgmentproperty    attachments. T  Inthiscase,thereareothercompellingreasonsthatthese j  claimsshouldnotbeentertainedinthelimitedactionproperly 0 beforethisCourt.TheexistenceofthefundundertheCourts  jurisdictionispurelyaccidentalandresultsonlybecausethe l escrowagentand informalmediatorwhothepartiespickedhas 2 hisofficeinthiscounty.TheclaimsraisedbyEasternall H relatetoactionsthattookplaceinPennsylvania,whereRobinson  wasrepresentingEasternintheunderlyinglitigation.Robinson  residesinandhashislawofficesinPennsylvania.The J litigationthatproducedthefundtookplaceinstatecourtsin !`  Pennsylvania.Itisalsonotedthatthepartiesarenowactively "&" engagedinlitigationintheCourtofCommonPleasofButler $$ County,Pennsylvania,overtheretaineragreement.Theonly b&!& connectionwithMarylandisthatEasternhasitscorporate ((x#( officesinHarfordCounty,Maryland,andnumerousphonecallsand )>%* correspondencebetweenEasternrepresentativesandRobinson +', occurredwiththeEasternrepresentativereceivingthemin  HarfordCounty.Robinsondeniesthatheeverpersonallycame v intoMarylandinconnectionwiththerepresentationorhasever < beenpresentinMarylandforlegalrepresentationorbusiness  R purposes.Additionally,oneofthecounselwhocameintothe   underlyinglitigationinPennsylvaniahashisofficeinEllicott    City,Maryland,andagreedtoacceptthejudgmentproceedsand T  attemptedtomediatethedisputebetweentheparties. j  X)X X۹AsearlyasWilmerv.Philadelphia&ReadingCoalandIronCo.,124Md.599(1915),theCourtof 0 Appealsmadeclearthataninterpleaderactionwaslimitedtothe p fundbeforethecourtwhenitsaid, P  l<`  X  XB+` ` hp x X(#BAdefendantinastrictinterpleadersuitcannot  havereliefbycrossbillagainstthe X complainant.     1     DK  Thereasonforthisruleis  p manifest.Thelitigationbetweentheplaintiffand 8 defendantmustbeconfinedtothethingordebtin  thehandsoftheplaintiff,andthedefendant x cannotinjectintothelitigationadifferent @ subjectmatter. X   XWilmer,124Md.at611.  WhiletheinterpleaderandgeneralpleadingrulesinMaryland ( x! havebecomemoreflexiblesinceWilmer,thereisnoindicationthat !# thesoundprinciplearticulatedabovehasbeenaltered.  @   2     N   H#%  X X۹XX)Morerecently,theCourtofAppealsincasessuchasFarmers $( ' &MechanicsBankv.Walser,316Md.366(1989),hasadoptedthe  viewoftheFederalcourts,applyingtheanalogousfederalrule v thatinterpleaderactionsarelimitedtothefundadjudication < purposesthatcausedthedevicetodevelop.Relyingoncases  R suchasStateFarmFire&CasualtyCo.v.Tahire,386U.S.523   (1967),theCourtofAppealsinFarmers&Mechanicsindicated    thatitacceptedfortheMarylandruletheviewexpressedin T  Tahirethatinterpleaderwasnotmeanttobe anallpurpose j  billofpeaceastoclaimsamongtheparties.Id.at383. 0 Suchanextensionwould,inthewordsoftheTahirecourtquoted  inFarmers&Mechanics requirethatthetailbeallowedtowag l thedog.Id.SeealsoAllstateInsuranceCo.v.McNeill,382 2 F.2d84(4thCir.1967). H Inthiscase,theCourtdiscernsnogroundstopermit  Eastern,withintheambitofthelimitedinterpleaderaction,to  usethetailofthisactiontowagthedogthatotherwise J comfortablyrestsinNorthwesternPennsylvania.Robinsonis !`  entitledtocomeintoMarylandtoasserthisclaimonthecourt "&" heldassetswithoutsubjectinghimselftoafloodofclaims $$ unrelatedtothepresentownershipofthefundsbeforethecourt. b&!& Easterncanassertitsnonfundrelatedclaimsinother ((x#( appropriateforums,butthisinterpleaderactionisnarrowly )>%* containedtothoseclaimsthatdemonstrateanentitlementtothe +', fundsinquestion.ClaimsIItoXIIdonotallegesuch,andthey  mustbedismissed. v TheCourtsdecisionhereisgroundedsolelyontheproper < scopeofaninterpleaderactionunderRule2221.Whilefinding  R thatEasterncannotpursueitscontractandtortclaimsinthis   Rule2221actioninHowardCounty,Maryland,theCourtdoesnot    resolvetheissueofwhetherRobinsonsothercontactswith T  Maryland,excludinghisparticipationintheinterpleaderaction, j  aresufficienttosubjecthimtosuitbroughtinanappropriate 0 Marylandforum.  EasternhasmovedtodismissCountIIofRobinsons l Counterclaim,whichisentitled EquitableReliefandmerely 2 restatestheclaimmadeinCountIoftheCounterclaimthat H RobinsonhasanentitlementtothefundsbeforetheCourt.Count  IIisaduplicationoftheclaimmadeinCountI,andthisCourt  discernsnoreasonthatitisnecessaryoraddsinanywaytothe J claimmadeinCountI.Itthereforewillbedismissed. !`  Forthereasonsstatedabove,itis,this_____dayof "&" April,2004, $$ ORDERED,thatRobinsonsmotiontodismissisgrantedand b&!& CountsIIthroughXIIofEasternscomplaintaredismissed;and ((x#( itisfurther, )>%* ORDERED,thatEasternsmotiontodismissisgrantedand +', CountIIoftheRobinsoncounterclaimisdismissed.    X h______________________________ < __   `     h     DennisM.Sweeney  o ЀJUDGE  R  hCopiesMailed򀀀to:   BrianJablon,Esq.    Saltzman&Jablon,LLC q  3201RogersAvenue,Ste.301 T  EllicottCity,MD21043 7  SaulJ.Singer,Esq. M  14YeatmanCourt 0 SilverSpring,MD20902  CharlesW.Robinson,Esq.  170ThornHillRoad l Warrendale,PA15086 O  %SX X۹) %S