SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2021
Monday, October 4, 2021:
No. 11 Everette William Johnson v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Law – Is a defendant’s right to a unanimous jury verdict violated when the State presents evidence of multiple incidents at trial to prove a single charged count, in the absence of an election between the incidents or a special jury instruction?
Attorney for Petitioner: Brian M. Lipshutz
Attorney for Respondent: Gary E. O'Connor
Misc. No. 3 Jabari Morese Lyles v. Santander Consumer USA Inc.
Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Question: If a credit grantor is found to have knowingly violated Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions ("CLEC"), Maryland Code Annotated, Commercial Law §§12-1001, et seq., does CLEC § 12-1018(b) require the credit grantor to return three times: (1) all amounts collected by the credit grantor in excess of the principal amount financed; (2) only those amounts collected that the borrower contends violate the CLEC (in this case, the convenience fee); or (3) some other amount.
Attorney for Appellant: Cory L. Zajdel
Attorney for Appellee: Robert J. Brener
No. 8 Pabst Brewing Company v. Frederick P. Winner, Ltd.
Issue – Alcoholic Beverages – When control of a beer brand changes hands through a sale of the stock of a beer manufacturer, is there a “successor beer manufacturer” with the right to terminate a distribution agreement?
Attorney for Petitioner: Paul W. Hughes
Attorney for Respondent: Robert S. Brennen
Wednesday, October 6, 2021:
AG No. 47 (2020 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Edward Allen Malone
Attorney for Petitioner: Jessica M. Boltz
Attorney for Respondent: Craig S. Brodsky
No. 12 Karen Webb v. Giant of Maryland, LLC
Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) In reviewing the denial of a motion for summary judgment but not the denial of a motion for judgment under the abuse of discretion standard, did CSA depart from its own precedent in holding that a trial court’s denial of both motions for summary judgment and/or for judgment are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard? 2) Where the evidence did not change between summary judgment and through trial, did CSA, which upheld the trial court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment on an issue of material fact, then err in reversing the trial court’s ruling denying the motion for judgment addressing the same issue of material fact? 3) Where CSA indicated that there was sufficient evidence to argue that jurors could draw negative inferences from the absence of video footage of the incident, did CSA err both in holding that the trial court’s decision to provide a standard spoliation instruction was an abuse of discretion and in holding that giving the instruction also resulted in probable prejudice?
Attorney for Petitioner: Michael D. Reiter
Attorney for Respondent: Stephen J. Marshall
No. 9 Jason Mercer v. Thomas B. Finan Center
Issue – Health-General – Did CSA err by holding that Md. Code § 10-708 of the Health-General Article does not require an Administrative Law Judge to make an on-the-record assessment of whether the Respondent waived his statutory right to counsel?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Miriam Sincell
Attorneys for Respondent: Morgan E. Clipp and Musa Eubanks
Thursday, October 7, 2021:
No. 6 Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Thornton Mellon, LLC, et al.
Issues – Tax-Property – 1) Is a tax sale certificate no longer assignable once a court enters judgment foreclosing the right of redemption? 2) Assuming, arguendo, that a tax sale certificate is assignable after foreclosure, was the purported assignment here nonetheless invalid for failure to comply with provisions of law relating to the short assignment of mortgages? 3) Is a judgment foreclosing the right of redemption non-assignable? 4) Assuming, arguendo, that a foreclosure judgment is assignable, must the assignment be filed and docketed in the circuit court, not merely attached as an exhibit to a motion, before the assignee can enforce the judgment in the assignee’s name?
Attorney for Petitioner: Michael Redmond
Attorneys for Respondent: N. Tucker Meneely and Geoffrey Polk
No. 10 In re: S.F.
Issue – Juvenile Law – Is it improper for a juvenile court to make a school’s discretionary decision to suspend a child a violation of the child’s probation?
Attorney for Petitioner: Brian Saccenti
Attorney for Respondent: Carrie J. Williams
Friday, October 8, 2021:
No. 7 Park Plus, Inc. v. Palisades of Towson, LLC and Encore Development Corp.
Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in affirming the order compelling arbitration and ignoring the principles set forth in Shailendra Kumar, P.A. v. Anand M. Dhanda, 426 Md. 185 (2012)? 2) Did CSA err in following Gannett Fleming, Inc. v. Corman Construction, Inc., 243 Md.App. 376 (2019), which limited the application of Kumar to contracts for non-binding arbitration and held that Md. Code § 5-101 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article does not govern claims subject to contractual arbitration? 3) Did the trial court and CSA err by treating a petition to compel arbitration as a “claim” with a separate limitations period, rather than as a remedy that must be properly invoked within the applicable limitations period for the substantive claim? 4) In the alternative, did the trial court err in failing to refer the statute-of-limitations issue to the arbitrator, and thereafter in confirming the arbitral award, even though the arbitrator refused to hear Petitioner’s affirmative defense based on the statue of limitations applicable to Respondent’s claim?
Attorney for Petitioner: Andrew Butz
Attorney for Respondent: David G. Sommer
Misc. No. 4 Westfield Insurance Company v. Michael Gilliam
Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Question: For purposes of determining the reduction of a plaintiff's underinsured motorist benefits required by Maryland Insurance Code 19-513(e), does Maryland law treat the "write-down," or the difference between medical bills submitted by a workers' compensation claimant's health care provider and the lower amount actually paid by a workers' compensation insurer to satisfy those bills, pursuant to the Maryland Guide of Medical and Surgical Fees, as "recovered benefits" to the plaintiff under the Maryland Workers' Compensation Act?
Attorney for Appellant: David A. Skomba
Attorney for Appellee: Peter J. Basile
SUZANNE C. JOHNSON
CLERK
Pursuant to the August 6, 2021 Third 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 September 15, 2021 Sixth Administrative Order on Remote Oral Arguments, the Court will hear oral arguments in these cases by videoconferencing.