Argument Schedule -- December, 2024

SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS

September Term, 2024

 

Monday, December 9, 2024:

Bar Admissions

Misc. Nos. 3 & 4 Government Employees Insurance Company, et al. v. MAO-SSO Recovery II, LLC, Series PMPI, et al.

Certified Question of Law from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Whether the assignment of the right to seek and receive unpaid reimbursement of payments for expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(3)(A) (2018) pursuant to a contingency compensation arrangement/agreement is void as against public policy of Maryland, and if so, whether such an arrangement/agreement is unenforceable regardless of any choice of law provision contained in such an agreement.

Attorney for Appellant: Laura A. Cellucci
Attorney for Appellee: Timothy F. Mahoney

No. 17 In the Matter of the Petition of Featherfall Restoration LLC

Issues – Insurance Law – 1) Does the standard insurance policy clause prohibiting assignment of “this policy” absent insurer consent prohibit the insured from assigning a post-loss claim benefit under the policy without its consent? 2) Did the lower courts err in affording deference to and affirming the ruling of law by the Maryland Insurance Administration (“MIA”) that anti-assignment clauses in property insurance policies preclude post-loss assignments of claims, instead of following this Court’s precedents upholding post-loss claim assignments in the face of anti-assignment clauses? 3) Did the lower courts err in affirming the MIA’s decision that Petitioner, as an assignee of insurance benefits from the insurer, was not a “claimant” or “aggrieved” with standing to challenge the insurer’s unfair claims settlement practices with respect to the claim assigned? 4) Should the trial court have issued a declaratory judgment that the assignment of claim benefits at issue did not violate the contractual provision that “assignment of this policy will not be valid unless we give our written consent” instead of deferring to the agency’s interpretation of Maryland contract law? (Note: The SCM granted a writ of cert only as to Petitioner’s questions 2, 4, 5, and 6.)

Attorney for Petitioner: Catherine A. Potthast
Attorneys for Respondent: Joseph Dudek and Philipp M. Pierson

No. 21 Seamus Coyle v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When the Office of the Public Defender appointed counsel to Petitioner and approved of assigned counsel’s determination that a petition for writ of certiorari should be filed, was Petitioner entitled to the effective assistance of counsel in filing such a petition? 2) Must prejudice be presumed when, due to ineffective assistance of counsel, Petitioner was denied his right to file a petition for writ of certiorari and did the post-conviction court err in holding that he must establish that the petition would have been granted?

Attorney for Petitioner: Nancy S. Forster
Attorney for Respondent: Jillian R. Chieppor

 

Tuesday, December 10, 2024:

Misc. No. 5 Donald S. Wiley, et al. v. Anthony G. Brown, et al.

Certified Question of Law from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

1) What legal standard does the term "reasonable grounds" connote in Maryland's Red Flag Law, codified in Title Five of the Public Safety Article of the Maryland Annotated Code? 2) Does the statue permit an extreme risk protective order to issue upon a standard less than probable cause?

Attorney for Appellants: Edward A. Paltzik
Attorney for Appellees: Ryan Robert Dietrich

No. 23 State of Maryland, Comptroller of Maryland v. Badlia Brothers, LLC d/b/a Southwest Check Cashing

Issue – State Government – Where the State has already satisfied its obligation to pay funds pursuant to a state-issued check, did the trial court err in concluding that the State has waived sovereign immunity against a claim by a holder in due course of that check who subsequently seeks to have the State pay that obligation a second time?

Attorney for Petitioner: Murray Singerman
Attorney for Respondent: Allen E. Honick

 

After December 10, 2024, the Court will recess until January 6, 2025. 

On the day of argument, counsel must register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.

 

GREGORY HILTON
CLERK