WPC> ؈pdiy9sV_[$an.ػ/Pe׿V}&h1Y&@)c֓C:ާ,udMX|vk[Z 6Kܚ5KK@Q9fb~iS _WrvI  o%{XwjQFAD=Ai6n\S}ZOgݕoSsר\6ns+Y!u_DMvzIQ(u K B,#I =No01;fȖ@> \}n63p)OYiul$"mJaeō"XZGr ǥ+KyEf5,Ց CpX؃))9[:RQ[O91E赐||)]*iuVGI$WNcMdwq冥2.g&Jx`OeGy|Цz''S'\[^  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0s 0R 0. 0 0 0 0 0z 0M 0 0 0 0 0s 0N 0& 0 0 0 0h 01 0<& 0b 0 0>! 0v@!U>! 0v! 0vj" 0v" 0vV# 0v# 0B$ 00$ 02% 0$&U6 ' 0:V' 0Y' 0_' 0 H( 0R) 0* B~, D/,U*, D+, 0- DC. 0. 06/ 0/ 0:1 0^@1 021 01 0BT2 02 0:<3 0v3 0457 B-: 0C: %!;!;!; 0'; B/;; 0P;#O<UN>>M^>(b>N>w>4>> m>3 2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  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  6a Q4heading 1     XXX        XXX<:Default Para<$$:Definition T  XXX  XXX<pp:Definition L  ,   5+ ` hp x 5XXX   5+ ` hp x 5  XXX86Definition(''&H1  XXX   \  `&Times New Roman(''&H2  XXX   (''&H3  XXX   (''&H4  XXX   XXX(''&H5  XXX   (''&H6  XXX   2''0Address  XXX  XXX8||6Blockquote  , ,   5+ ` hp x 5XXX    5+ ` hp x 5  XXX,*CITE,dl*CODEK-<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS#\  `&Times New RomanS<6X9`(Courier New42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K-<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS#\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted    /%  +Kk $#/K-<6X9`(Courier NewK  XXXS#\  `&Times New RomanS  /%  +Kk $#/86zBottom of  75(X7  ?6%2A`Arial?  XXXS#\  `&Times New RomanS77(X7   d4)1dxd%2A`Arial'dxd:8zTop of For  79(X7  ?6%2A`Arial?  XXXS#\  `&Times New RomanS77(X7  4=Thin Bottomdxd0KS.SampleK-<6X9`(Courier NewKS#\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK-<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS#\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      20Comment<$$:footnote tex  XXX  <:footnote ref0;;.footer    XXX    XXX:8page number:008Body Text 2  X XXX  X XXX<be:Body Text In  X 2( ` hp x 2XXX  5+ ` hp x 5  XXX'  zhangz0Training .     P'S!..     _#X`CXXRX @  @  @ <( 4 <DLX<A    1  AP  ݀TheCourtdoesnotaddressthemotiontodismiss_Ballard_Ԁ_Spahr_ԀAndrews&Ingersollasonly  _Ballard_Ԁ_Spahr_ԀAndrew&Ingersoll_LLP_Ԁwasincludedintheamendedcomplaint,anddefendants  didnotrenewthismotionaftertheamendedcomplaint. |  @ )Hairline d($    RX(X2r$ P'S!..       0  +Hairline1 d3|P(('S$..    HP LaserJet 5/5M PostScript0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular*2:i+00U P'S!..     _  #X`CXXRX8#`C#XXdd8  FINALANALYSISCOMMUNICATION  *  INTHE  SERVICES,INC.    Plaintiff    h   *  CIRCUITCOURT b    `     h   #X`CXX#X`C    v.   `     h   *  FOR`݌ . ~ Ќ  #X`CXX#X`C  _BALLARD_Ԁ_SPAHR_ԀANDREWS&0 h   *  BALTIMORECITY Jh(#h(# INGERSOLL,_LLP_Ԁetal.  0     Defendants    h   *  Part20 p       X `     h   *  CaseNo.24c04009146 x   X****************************************************************************** ^  &       #X`CXX#X`C      ORDERw  _Ԍ *z  Ќ     #X`CXX#X`C    UponconsiderationofdefendantsmotiontodismissdefendantsCharlesHirsch,David F Cohen,andRobert_Boote_,anddefendantsmotiontodismissbasedonthestatuteoflimitations,  plaintiffsopposition,anddefendantsreply,argumentsofcounselhavingbeenheardonJune  22,2005,itisthis8thdayofJuly,2005,bytheCircuitCourtforBaltimoreCity,Part20,'* Z   ORDERED forthereasonssetforthintheaccompanyingmemorandumopinionofthis &v datethatdefendantsmotiontodismissdefendantsCharlesHirsch,DavidCohen,andRobert B _Boote_Ԁis GRANTED, withprejudice.Thedefendantsmotiontodismissbasedonthestatuteof  limitationsis DENIED .   K    0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#_________________________________<#"(#(#    `     h     ALBERTJ._MATRICCIANI_,JR. "$r#    `     h     Judge %X $ cc:AllCounsel(viaemail) &$"&   ' #' _FINALANALYSISCOMMUNICATION  *  INTHE  SERVICES,INC.    Plaintiff    h   *  CIRCUITCOURT b   #X`CXX#X`C  j  v.   `     h   *  FORj݌ . ~ Ќ  #X`CXX#X`C  BALLARDSPAHRANDREWS&0 h   *  BALTIMORECITY Jh(#h(# INGERSOLL,LLPetal.  0     Defendants    h   *  Part20 p      x       X `     h   *  CaseNo.24c04009146 x   X****************************************************************************** ^  &       #X`CXX#X`C      MEMORANDUMOPINIONd  LԌ *z  Ќ     #X`CXX#X`C  I.Background'* F   In1993,FinalAnalysisCommunicationServices(FACS)andFinalAnalysisInc.(FAI)  wereformedbyNaderModanloandMichaelAhantodeveloptheFAISATsystem,asystemof  satellitesforwirelesscommunication.ModanloandAhaneachownedhalfofFAIssharesand Z FAIownedthemajorityofFACSstock.In1995,Modanlo,asanofficerofthetwocompanies, &v retainedBallardSpahrAndrews&Ingersoll,LLP(BallardSpahr)torepresentFACSandFAIin B corporatematters.FACSreceivedthelastknownBallardSpahrinvoiceinSeptember,1999.  Therewasnoformalterminationofrepresentation.    XForitscurrentpurpose,theCourtdoesnotneedtorecitethelongandarduoushistoryof V"! thedeteriorationofModanloandAhansrelationship.ItissufficienttosaythatModanloand "$r# AhanengagedinsignificantlitigationasadversepartiesoverFACSandatonepointBallard %>!% SpahrprovidedlegalservicestoAhanwithoutModanlosknowledge.OnNovember17,2000, ' #' BallardSpahrauthoredtwoopinionlettersperAhansrequest,statingthatthebylawsadopted )$) byFACSandFAIin1999wereinvalid,therebyassistingAhaninhisdisputeswithModanlo. R+&+ AfterlearningofthelettersinMayof2001,ModanloandFACSattemptedtoconvinceBallard  Spahrtomodifytheletters,butBallardSpahrrefused.Inaddition,theplaintiffallegesthat | BallardSpahrrefusedtospeakwithModanlopersonallybecauseModanlowasanopposing H partyandBallardSpahrrefusedtoprovideModanolowithFACSfiles.Amd.Compl.67,88  d 89.  0  X  OnDecember13,2004,FACS,whichwasandiscontrolledbyModanlo,filedalegal    malpracticeclaiminBaltimoreCityCircuitCourtagainstBallardSpahr.OnApril20,2004the x  plaintifffileditsfirstamendedcomplaint.Inshort,FACSallegesthatBallardSpahractedin D  conflictwithitsdutiestoitsclient,FACS,byprovidingAhanwithlegaladviceandopinion ` letters,whichdamagedFACSbyassistingAhanslitigationeffortstotakeoverFACS. , Currently,AhanisnolongeraboardmemberofthecompaniesandModanloremainsincontrol  ofFACS. t   BallardSpahrfiledamotiontodismissdefendantsCharlesHirsch(Hirsch),DavidCohen @ (Cohen),andRobertBoote(Boote)forfailuretostateaclaim,amotiontodismissBallardSpahr  \ Andrews&Ingersollforfailuretostateaclaim,andamotiontodismissbasedonthestatuteof ( limitations.OnMay2,2005,astotheamendedcomplaint,thedefendantsrenewedtheirmotion  todismissbasedonthestatuteoflimitationsandthemotiontodismissdefendantsBoote,Hirsch p!  andCohen.TheplaintifffiledtheiroppositiononMay17,2005.AhearingwasheldonJune <#" 22,2005. %X $     II.StandardofReview (#(   Inreviewingamotiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaim,theCourtassumesthetruth l*%* ofallwellpleadedallegationsanddrawsallreasonableinferencesintheplaintiffsfavor. 8,', BennettHeating&AirConditioning,Inc.v.NationsBank,103Md.App.749(1995),revdin  partonothergrounds,342Md.169(1996).Anyambiguityoruncertaintyinallegations, | however,isconstruedagainstthepleader.Allecov.WeinbergFoundation,340Md.175,193 H (1995).  d   III.Boote,HirschandCohen      DefendantsasktheCourttodismissdefendantsHirsch,Cohen,andBootefromthe x  lawsuitbecausethecomplaintfailstopleadanyparticularsastohowthesedefendantswere D  involvedinAhansrepresentation.A  A$P  G I  1      Marylandlawrequirespleadingstobesupportedby ` adequatefactsforwhichreliefisavailable.MDRule2305.TheCourtfindsthattheamended , complaintcontainssufficientfactualallegationsinvolvingJamesHanks(Hanks)andWilliam  Agee(Agee)forprovidinglegalassistancetoAhan,butisvoidoffactsthatindicatepersonal t involvementbyHirsch,Cohen,andBoote. @  XParagraph91oftheamendedcomplaintallegesthatHirsch,asBallardSpahrscorporate  \ designee,perpetratedacontinuingpatternofdeceptionagainstFACSbystatingatadeposition ( thathedidnotknowwhoBallardSpahrrepresented.Thissoleallegationisnotsufficientto  sustainacauseofactionagainstdefendantHirsch.Neitheristheassertionthathepermitted p!  Ahantoreviewdocumentsforprivilegeclaimsasapartofthediscoveryprocess,afterHanks <#"  andAgeeleftthelawfirm. %X $ Similarly,theamendedcomplaintdoesnotallegethatCohenwaspersonallyinvolvedin   givinglegaladvicetoAhan.WhenModanloattemptedtoconvinceBallardSpahrtomodifythe | opinionletters,Cohen,thechairmanofBallardSpahratthetimeoftheopinionletters,simply H statedthefirmsposition.SeeAmd.Compl.82.Lastly,Bootehadnopersonalconnectionto  d Ahansrepresentation.BootefirstappearedintheoriginalcomplaintunderCountVII,violation  0 oftheUniformPartnershipAct.Thefirstamendedcomplaint,however,nolongercontainsany    allegationsinvolvingtheUniformPartnershipAct,muchlessanyfactualallegationsregarding x  Boote.NowBootesnameappearsonlyintheintroductoryparagraphofthefirstamended D  complaint.Hence,theCourtfindsthattheplaintiffhasfailedtostateaclaimforwhichrelief ` maybegrantedastodefendantsHirsch,Cohen,andBoote.TheCourtisnotpersuadedthat , leavetoamendshouldbegrantedastothesedefendantsbecauseitisclearthatthedismissed  defendantshadonlyminimalinvolvementinthesubjectmatteroftheamendedcomplaint. t   B  X IV.StatuteofLimitations (   DefendantshavearguedtotheCourtthatthestatuteoflimitationsforFACSbeganto  accrueonthedateofBallardSpahrsopinionletterstoAhan,November17,2000.Tocalculate p!  thestatuteoflimitation,theclockstartswhennoticetocorporationsoccursviaitsagents.Mercy <#" Med.Ctr.v.UnitedHealthcare,149Md.App.336,366(2003).Aslongastheagentactswithin %X $ thescopeofhisdutiesandcanbereasonablyexpectedtocommunicatetheinformationtothe &$"& corporation,thentheagentsknowledgeisimmediatelyimputedtothecorporation.Id.Here, (#( plaintiffhaspleadedthatbecauseofAhansadverseinterests,Ahansknowledgecannotbe l*%* imputedtoFACSandFACSdidnothavenoticeofBallardSpahrsinvolvementwithAhanor 8,', theopinionlettersuntilMayof2001.Amend.Compl.3847,66.    Next,defendantsassertthattheplaintiffsclaimisuntimelyandcannotbesavedbythe | adverseinterestexceptionbecauseAhansinterestwasnot completelyadversetothatofthe H principal.Whiletheadverseinterestexceptiononlyallowsthecorporationtoavoidimputation  d oftheagentsknowledgeiftheagentsinterestissufficientlyadversetothatoftheprincipal,the  0 agentsinterestisonlyoneofthethreefactorsdiscussedinthecasehighlightedbythe    defendants,MartinMariettaCorp.v.Gould,Inc.,70F.3d768(4thCir.1995). x    InMartinMarietta,MartinMariettaCorporationacquiredOceanSystemtoproducea D  productthatassistssubmarineswithsounddetection.ThedefendantsoughttoimputeOcean ` SystememployeesknowledgeregardingadefecttoOceanSystemsnewowner,Martin , Marietta.Thecourtaskedthreequestions.First,wastheknowledgeacquiredbeyondthescope  oftheagencyrelationship?Id.at773,seealsoLohmullerBuildingCo.v.Gamble,160Md.534 t (1931).Second,towhichtransactiondoesthedefendantseektoimputeknowledge?Id.Third, @ astothatparticulartransaction,aretheinterestsoftheagentandprincipalsufficientlyadverse  \ thatitisrationalandnaturaltoinferthatagentwillconcealitsknowledge?Id.Thecourtheld ( first,thatOceanSystemacquiredtheknowledgebeforeMartinMariettapurchasedOcean  Systems,whichwasbeyondtheagencyrelationshipbetweenOceanSystemsandMartin p!  Marietta;second,thatthedefendantsoughttoimputetheknowledgeforthepurposesofthe <#" acquisitionagreementbetweenthetwocompanies;andthird,thatthepartieswerecompletely %X $ adverseduringthecreationoftheacquisitionagreement.MartinMariettaat774. &$"&   Inthecaseatbar,althoughAhanwasa50percentshareholderandboardmemberof (#( FACS,plaintiffhaspleadedtheMartinMariettafactorstotheCourtssatisfaction.The l*%* amendedcomplaintallegesthatAhandidnotactwithinthescopeofhisagencyrelationshipwith 8,', FACSwhenhe conductedaclandestineandunauthorizedmeetingandenteredintoa secret  andunethicalrelationshipwithBallardSpahrtoadvancehis schemeoftakingoverFACS. | Amd.Compl.4244,52.Furthermore,AhanslawsuitonthebehalfofFACSagainst H ModanloinMontgomeryCountyCircuitCourtindicatesconfusionatbestastowhichparty  d couldproperlybecharacterizedasanagentofFACS.Id.at47.Inanefforttominimizethe  0 effectsofAhansattempttooustModanloaspresidentandmaintainFACSabilitytofunction    asacorporation,theMontgomeryCountyCourtorderedthemanagementandcontrolofFACS x  toremainthesameasitwasonAugust14,2000.ThismeantModanlowasleftasPresidentand D  requiredanyoneactingonbehalfofFACS(operatingFACS,makingwithdrawalsfromFACS ` accounts,andconductingmeetings)toobtaintheunanimousconsentoftheboardofdirectors. , PlaintiffclaimsthattheseMontgomeryCountyCircuitCourtordersenjoinedAhanandtwo  otherboardmembersfromrepresentingthemselvesasFACSagents.Amd.Compl.55.Hence, t theCourtfindsthattheplaintiffhaspleadedadequatelythatAhanwasnotanagentofFACS. @   DefendantsseektoimputeAhansknowledgeoftheNovember17,2000opinionletters  \ toFACS.Asdescribedabove,theamendedcomplaintincludessufficientallegationsforthe ( Courttoinferthat itisrationalandnaturaltoinferthatagent[Ahan]willconcealits  knowledge.MartinMariettaCorp.v.Gould,Inc.,70F.3d768,773(4thCir.1995).Therefore, p!  theCourtfindsthattheplaintiffhasadequatelypleadedtheadverseinterestexceptionanddenies <#" thedefendantsmotiontodismissbasedonstatuteoflimitations. %X $   TheCourtmay,however,treatamotiontodismissasamotionforsummaryjudgmentif &$"& itconsidersmattersoutsidethepleadings.Md.Rule2501.Summaryjudgmentwillbegranted (#( ifthereisnogenuinedisputeastoanymaterialfactandjudgmentcanbeenteredasamatterof l*%* law.Boydv.Hickman,114Md.App.108(1997).EveniftheCourttreatsthedefendants 8,', statuteoflimitationsargumentasamotionforsummaryjudgment,defendantswillnotbe  successful.DefendantsarguedvigorouslyattheJune22hearingthatthe2000litigationin | MontgomeryCountyCircuitCourtdidnotbarAhanfromseekinglegaladviceonbehalfofthe H corporation.Moreover,AhanwasworkingwithtwootherFACSboardmembers,who  d constitutedamajority.Therefore,defendantsarguedthatAhanwaswithoutquestionanagentof  0 FACS.TheCourtbelieves,however,giventheinfightingandlitigationinvolvingcontrolof    FACS,thatthequestionofwhoactedforthecorporationwasverymuchindispute.Certainly, x  theCourtcannotfindasamatteroflawthatAhanwasanagentofFACSatthisjuncture. D  Lastly,whetherAhancouldbe reasonablyexpectedtocommunicatehisknowledgeto ` Modanlo,FACSpresident,isafactualdeterminationrequiringfurtherdevelopment. , Consequently,theCourtfindsthattherearedisputesastomaterialfactsandwoulddenythe  defendantsmotionaswell,iftreatedasoneforsummaryjudgment. t   TheCourtwillnotdiscusstheadversedominationtheoryasitonlyappliestolawsuits @ againstcorporateofficersanddirectors.MartinMariettaat772.Asforthecontinuationof  \ eventstheory,itwasapparentlyabandonedduringthehearingonthesemotions. ( V.Conclusion    h    p!      ThemotiontodismissdefendantsCharlesHirsch,DavidCohen,andRobertBooteis <#" granted,withprejudice.Themotiontodismissbasedonthestatuteoflimitationsisdenied. %X $ /    0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#_______________________________(#((#(#    `     h     ALBERTJ.MATRICCIANI,JR. )$)    `     h     Judge l*%* cc:AllCounsel(viaemail)