SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2020
Thursday, June 3, 2021:
No. 54 MAS Associates, LLC, et al. v. Harry S. Korotki
Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did the trial court exceed this Court’s decision and mandate in MAS Associates v. Korotki, 465 Md. 457 (2019) (“MAS Assoc.”), by entering judgment on two counts – unjust enrichment and wage payment – that were never appealed after the 2015 trial and were the subject of a final, enrolled judgment? 2) Did the trial court exceed this Court’s decision and mandate in MAS Assoc. by entering judgment against a former party who was beyond the trial court’s jurisdiction? 3) In adjusting damages awarded under the Maryland Wage and Collection Law, did the trial court abuse its discretion in finding no bona fide dispute and awarding no attorney’s fees or treble damages? 4) In adjusting damages awarded under unjust enrichment, did the trial court abuse its discretion in calculating prejudgment interest from the date of Respondent/Cross-Petitioner’s resignation rather than the date he made the loan? 5) Did the trial court err by not declaring judgment or adjusting damages under the Revised Uniform Partnership Act or the Md. Declaratory Judgment Act?
Attorney for Appellant: Vincent P. Jackson
Attorney for Appellee: Neal C. Baroody
No. 59 MAS Associates, LLC, et al. v. Harry S. Korotki
Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did the trial court exceed this Court’s decision and mandate in MAS Associates v. Korotki, 465 Md. 457 (2019) (“MAS Assoc.”), by entering judgment on two counts – unjust enrichment and wage payment – that were never appealed after the 2015 trial and were the subject of a final, enrolled judgment? 2) Did the trial court exceed this Court’s decision and mandate in MAS Assoc. by entering judgment against a former party who was beyond the trial court’s jurisdiction? 3) In adjusting damages awarded under the Maryland Wage and Collection Law, did the trial court abuse its discretion in finding no bona fide dispute and awarding no attorney’s fees or treble damages? 4) In adjusting damages awarded under unjust enrichment, did the trial court abuse its discretion in calculating prejudgment interest from the date of Respondent/Cross-Petitioner’s resignation rather than the date he made the loan? 5) Did the trial court err by not declaring judgment or adjusting damages under the Revised Uniform Partnership Act or the Md. Declaratory Judgment Act?
Attorney for Appellant: Vincent P. Jackson
Attorney for Appellee: Neal C. Baroody
No. 52 Mayor and City Council of Ocean City, et al. v. Commissioners of Worcester County, Maryland, et al.
Issues – Tax-Property – 1) Are Md. Code §6-305 and §6-306 of the Tax-Property Article (“TP”) – which provide for mandatory real property tax setoffs for certain municipalities, but only optional tax setoffs for other municipalities, including Ocean City – constitutional under Article XI-E, §1 of the Maryland Constitution, which requires the General Assembly to “act in relation to the …government or affairs of any … municipal corporation only by general laws which shall in their terms and in their effect apply alike to all municipal corporations”? 2) Should the unconstitutionally non-uniform provisions of TP §6-305 and §6-306 be severed to the end that all municipalities in this State should be entitled to receive mandatory tax setoffs from the counties in which they are located, upon a showing by a municipality that it performs services of a type provided by the county (i.e., upon a showing that it is entitled to setoff)?
Attorney for Petitioner: Bruce F. Bright
Attorney for Respondent: Victoria M. Shearer
No. 56 Advanced Radiology P.A., et al. v. William James Barton, Jr., et al.
Issues – Torts – 1) If negligent failure timely to diagnose cancer is alleged to be the proximate cause of a patient’s death, may a jury reasonably find proximate cause when the sole causation expert for the plaintiffs fails to opine that, more likely than not, the death was the proximate cause of a negligent delay in diagnosis? 2) May a jury in these circumstances nonetheless reasonably infer proximate cause from the expert’s recital of survival statistics that included a probability of death at the time of the allegedly late diagnosis at no greater than 34%? 3) Does CSA’s reversal of the trial judge’s entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict indirectly allow recovery for diminished chance of survival, a recovery that is not allowable under Maryland law?
Attorney for Petitioner: Alfred F. Belcuore
Attorney for Respondent: George S. Tolley, III and Ellen Flynn.
Friday, June 4, 2021:
AG No. 14 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Celestine Tatung
Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: David G. Mulquin
No. 57 Jared Ross v. Jennifer Ross
Family Law – 1) Did the trial court err by admitting into evidence an expert witness’ custody evaluation pursuant to Md. Rule 5-702 without a prior Frye-Reed or Daubert hearing as requested by Petitioner? 2) Was the erroneous admission of a custody evaluation ordered under Md. Rule 9-205.3 such an abuse of discretion that prejudice must be presumed, including in the appellate resolution of issues related to Petitioner’s credibility? 3) Did the trial court err by refusing to hear from competent children the reasons for their custodial preferences and their testimony regarding relevant facts?
Attorney for Petitioner: Paul Victor Jorgensen
Attorneys for Respondent: Alex M. Allman and Alisa G. Cummins
No. 58 Brawner Builders, Inc., et al. v. Maryland State Highway Administration
Issues – State Finance & Procurement – 1) Did CSA and the Maryland State Board of Contract Appeals (“MSBCA”) misconstrue the Code of Maryland Regulations (“COMAR”) definition of a “Procurement Contract” and thereby erroneously conclude that the subcontractor lacked standing to pursue its separate claims against the Maryland State Highway Administration (“SHA”)? 2) Did CSA and MSCBA improperly conclude that “untimely notice” was a jurisdictional bar to Petitioner’s and the subcontractor’s claims rather than an affirmative defense subject to the doctrine of equitable estoppel? 3) Did CSA and MSCBA err when they decided issues of material fact regarding Petitioner’s “notice” and the factual issue of the existence of a contract between the subcontractor and SHA by disregarding SHA’s admissions that claims were pending, would be responded to, and that an administrative process was ongoing?
Attorney for Petitioner: Paul A. Logan
Attorney for Respondent: Sonia Cho
After June 4, 2021, the Court will recess until September 9, 2021.
SUZANNE C. JOHNSON
CLERK
Pursuant to the February 16, 2021 Amended Administrative Order Expanding Statewide Judiciary Operations in light of the COVID-19 Emergency and the June 18, 2018 Administrative order on the Implementation of Remote Electronic Participation in Judicial Proceedings, and the March 25, 2021 Fourth Administrative Order on Remote Oral Arguments, the Court will hear oral arguments in these cases by videoconferencing.