SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2019
Thursday, December 5, 2019:
Bar Admissions
AG No. 62 (2018 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. William Clark Planta
Attorney for Petitioner: Michael W. Blow
Attorney for Respondent: William Clark Planta
Misc. No. 3 William H. Plank, II, et al. v. James P. Cherneski, et al.
Certified Question from the Court of Special Appeals
Questions - 1) May minority members of an LLC (a) bring a stand-alone cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against the managing member of the LLC (b) premised on allegations that the managing member was engaged in unlawful actions that placed at risk the investments of the minority members? 2) If so, is such a claim (a) limited to allegations that would support another viable cause of action, (b) limited to allegations that would not also support another viable cause of action, or (c) not limited by whether or not there is another viable cause of action to address the same conduct?
Attorney for Appellant: H. Mark Stitchel
Attorney for Appellee: Jeffrey M. Schwaber
No. 35 Estate of Jeffrey Blair by Personal Representative Tiauna Blair v. David Austin
Issue – Torts – Did CSA err when, based solely on their interpretation of the video evidence that the jury considered in reaching its verdict, it overturned the jury’s factual finding that Respondent exceeded the level of force that an objectively reasonable officer in his situation would have used?
Attorney for Petitioner: Benjamin Rosenberg
Attorney for Respondent: Andre M. Davis
Friday, December 6, 2019:
AG No. 44 (2018 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gregory J. Milton
Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Gregory J. Milton
No. 26 In re: O.P.
Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Is the preponderance of the evidence standard adopted by the intermediate appellate court inconsistent with the plain language and protective purpose of the shelter-care statute? 2) Did CSA err in finding that the juvenile court did not commit error and abuse its discretion when it denied the local department’s petition to place in shelter care an infant who had suffered unexplained brain injuries consistent with non-accidental trauma and whose parents had delayed seeking medical treatment for four full days after the infant had stopped breathing for several minutes? 3) Does the appellate court have jurisdiction over a State appeal from an order denying a request for shelter care? 4) Given the fundamental, Constitutional right that parents and children have to an intact family free from unwarranted governmental interference, must the juvenile court apply a clear and convincing or preponderance of the evidence standard of proof, rather than a mere reasonable basis standard, during a shelter care hearing, where the State seeks to separate children from their parents due to an alleged need to prevent serious, immediate harm?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Ann M. Sheridan and Margaret Holmes
Attorneys for Respondent: Nenutzka Villamar and Jonathan Gladstone
No. 38 Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Margaret Shilling
Issue – Insurance – Did CSA err in holding that the statute of limitations for an underinsured motorist claim starts to run on the date a plaintiff executes a release with the tortfeasor’s insurance carrier, thereby allowing a plaintiff to unilaterally determine when the statute of limitations runs, prejudicing defendants?
Attorney for Petitioner: Jennifer L. Matzye
Attorney for Respondent: Ryan P. Richie
Monday, December 9, 2019:
AG No. 1 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jonathan Christian Dailey
Attorney for Petitioner: Michael W. Blow, Jr.
Attorney for Respondent: Jonathan Christian Dailey
No. 34 Latashia Pettiford v. Next Generation Trust Service
Issues – Real Property – 1) Did the district court err by failing to dismiss Respondent’s summary ejectment complaint when Respondent had not obtained, prior to renting the property to Petitioner, a permit required by law for the property to be occupied? 2) Did the district court err when it effectively denied Petitioner the opportunity to assert a warranty of habitability defense and denied Petitioner’s attempted rent escrow defense? 3) Did the circuit court erroneously affirm the district court’s entry of a consent judgment after Petitioner raised multiple defenses, had not come to any agreement with Respondent, and neither party had requested entry of a consent judgment?
Attorney for Petitioner: Charisse Lue
Attorney for Respondent: Rosa Gross and Akiva Gross
No. 13 Won Bok Lee v. Won Sun Lee
Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) When a judgment has been entered properly in a trial court’s electronic case management system in compliance with Maryland Rule 2-601(b)(2), must the docket entry and its date of entry also be identified clearly on the Case Search feature of the Judiciary website in order for there to have been an “entry” of the judgment to begin the 30-day time period in which an appeal must be filed? 2) When a federal court judgment is recorded and entered in a Maryland circuit court, may the state court judgment be renewed independently of any renewal of the federal court judgment?
Attorney for Petitioner: Marc A. Campsen
Attorney for Respondent: Henry A. Andrews
Tuesday, December 10, 2019:
No. 30 Darlene Barclay v. Sadie M. Castruccio
Issues – Torts – 1) Did the trial court err when it ruled that the cause of action for intentional interference with an expectancy is not a cause of action under Maryland law? 2) Did Petitioner adequately plead facts to succeed on a claim of intentional interference with an expectancy?
Attorney for Petitioner: David E. Sessions
Attorneys for Respondent: Kenneth B. Frank and Cynthia Young
No. 31 Yaw Poku Podieh v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When the plain language of the immigration statutes is clear, must counsel correct a client’s known erroneous belief regarding the availability of immigration defenses following a plea to an aggravated felony? 2) Does the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution apply to immigration advice obtained to assist in evaluating a plea offer? 3) Did CSA wrongly overturn the post-conviction court’s findings of facts and misapply the third prong of the Mickens v. Taylor, 240 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 2001)(en banc), aff’d 535 U.S. 162 (2002), test governing conflict of interest claims?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Michelle M. Martz and James M. Nichols
Attorney for Respondent: Brenda E. Gruss
No. 36 Carlos Couret-Rios v. Fire and Police Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baltimore
Issue – Local Codes – Did the hearing examiner commit an error of law when she awarded line-of-duty disability benefits based on a finding of fact that Petitioner suffered from attention and memory deficits as a result of a traumatic brain injury sustained while performing his job?
Attorney for Petitioner: Duane A. Verderaime
Attorneys for Respondent: Heather R. Pensyl and Michael Redmond
On the day of argument, counsel are instructed to register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.
After December 10, 2019, the Court will recess until January 6, 2020.
SUZANNE C. JOHNSON
CLERK