SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2020
Thursday, March 4, 2021:
No. 38 Clifford Cain, et al. v. Midland Funding LLC
Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does the statute of limitations for actions on judgments under Md. Code § 5-102(a)(3) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”) apply to both parties to the judgment? 2) If Petitioner’s claims here are not governed by CJP § 5-102(a)(3), do claims under Maryland’s consumer protection laws concerning the continuing unfair, deceptive, and wrongful conduct accrue each time a damage occurs or an ill-gotten benefit is realized by the wrongdoer? 3) Does Federal tolling under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367(d) or class action tolling from a prior Federal action apply to a subsequent Maryland state action? 4) Did CSA have jurisdiction to review the trial court’s non-final orders?
Attorney for Petitioner: Scott Borison
Attorneys for Respondent: James P. Ulwick and Amy E. Askew
No. 39 Tasha Gambrell v. Midland Funding LLC
Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does the statute of limitations for actions on judgments under Md. Code § 5-102(a)(3) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”) apply to both parties to the judgment? 2) If Petitioner’s claims here are not governed by CJP § 5-102(a)(3), do claims under Maryland’s consumer protection laws concerning the continuing unfair, deceptive, and wrongful conduct accrue each time a damage occurs or an ill-gotten benefit is realized by the wrongdoer?
Attorney for Petitioner: Scott Borison
Attorneys for Respondent: James P. Ulwick and Amy E. Askew
Friday, March 5, 2021:
No. 43 Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper, et al. v. Donna Kemp
Issues – Commercial Law – 1) Does the definition of a “lender” in Md. Code § 12-101(f) of the Commercial Law Article (“CL”) as “a person who makes a loan” include a mortgage purchaser and a mortgage servicer who do not make loans? 2) Is the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Practices Act limited to policing methods of collection and does it exempt claims for collector’s unlawful claims for amounts barred by Maryland law? 3) Does CL § 14-202(8) exclude novel collection practices?
Attorney for Petitioner: Kevin Martin
Attorney for Respondent: Phillip R. Robinson
No. 30 Larry S. Chavis, et al. v. Blibaum and Associates, P.A.; Bryione K. Moore, et al. v. Peak Management LLC
Issues – Commercial Law – 1) Does using a wage garnishment to collect excess post-judgment interest and post-judgment filing fees constitute a violation of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, Md. Code §14-202(8) of the Commercial Law Article? 2) Does a trial court abuse its discretion by denying a motion for class certification, without conducting a hearing, when the undisputed evidence presented to the Court established that the identity of every class member can be established from the Respondent’s records?
Attorney for Petitioner: E. David Hoskins
Attorney for Respondent: James E. Dickerman
Monday, March 8, 2021:
AG No. 12 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Russell A. Neverdon, Sr.
Attorney for Petitioner: Christine M. Celeste
Attorney for Respondent: Randall J. Craig, Jr.
No. 41 Kenneth Mahai v. State of Maryland
Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) Does Article IV, § 14A of the Maryland Constitution, which authorizes CSA to exercise only intermediate appellate jurisdiction, preclude CSA from exercising final appellate jurisdiction by issuing a summary denial of an application for leave to appeal without addressing the issues raised, which has been held to bar further appellate review under Md. Code § 12-202 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”). 2) Did Petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel at trial when counsel failed to object to jury instructions regarding the definition of reasonable doubt? 3) Did Petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel at trial when counsel failed to object to voir dire questions that shifted the burden of determining bias to the venirepersons? 4) Did Petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to file a motion for modification of sentence and a motion for sentence review?
Attorney for Petitioner: Nancy S. Forster
Attorneys for Respondent: Daniel Jawor
No. 35 Kevin Whittington v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA, in a case of first impression, err in holding that the placement and use of a GPS tracking device was legal because a GPS Order issued under Md. Code § 1-203.1 of the Criminal Procedure Article satisfied the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement? 2) Did CSA err in finding that the good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applied in this case? 3) Did the issuing judge have a substantial basis for finding probable cause from exclusively circumstantial evidence of Petitioner’s criminal activities that provided a sufficient nexus to support a warrant to search his home, car, and person?
Attorney for Petitioner: Kenneth W. Ravenell
Attorneys for Respondent: Jeremy M. McCoy
After March 8, 2021, the Court will recess until April 8, 2021.
SUZANNE C. JOHNSON
CLERK
Pursuant to the December 22, 2020 Seventh Administrative Order Restricting Statewide Judiciary Operations Due to the COVID-19 Emergency and the June 18, 2018 Administrative order on the Implementation of Remote Electronic Participation in Judicial Proceedings, and the December 16, 2020 Second Administrative Order on Remote Oral Arguments, the Court will hear oral arguments in these cases by videoconferencing.