Conwell Law LLC v. Tung
| Citation | 221 Md.App. 481,109 A.3d 1227 |
| Decision Date | 25 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 476, Sept. Term, 2013.,476, Sept. Term, 2013. |
| Parties | CONWELL LAW LLC v. Mary Beth TUNG, et al. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Scott A. Conwell (Conwell Law, LLC, on the brief) Crofton, MD, for appellant.
Stephan Brennan, Pasadena, MD & Jonathan Greenbaum (Coburn & Greenbaum, PLLC, on the brief) Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Panel: DEBORAH S. EYLER, NAZARIAN, JAMES A. KENNEY, III (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.*
This appeal arises from a suit brought in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County by a law firm, Conwell Law LLC (the “Firm”), against its former employee, Mary Beth Tung, an associated firm, BIO Intellectual Property Services LLC (“BIO”), and BIO's employee, Douglas Robinson.1 The suit arose from the Firm's representation of Technical Furniture Group, LLC (“Technical Furniture”) in matters before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Appeal Board”). Ms. Tung, then an employee of the Firm, served as lead counsel in those matters and Mr. Robinson as back-up counsel.2 The subject matter of the suit ends up not being important for our purposes, though—between failures of service and failure to state a claim, and notwithstanding the volume of paper filed in the case, the suit never got past the initial pleading stage.
The circuit court dismissed the Firm's claims against both appellees with prejudice after finding that the Firm's initial (and later amended) complaint failed to state a claim against the BIO Defendants and that the Firm failed to effect service of process on Ms. Tung. On appeal, the Firm challenges these findings and raises for the first time issues concerning the appearance of impropriety in the circuit court. We find that the Firm failed to preserve its impropriety argument, reject the Firm's other arguments, and affirm.
The Firm filed its initial complaint against Ms. Tung, Mr. Robinson, and BIO on December 16, 2011.3 It filed two versions of the complaint—one titled “COMPLAINT (NON –CONFIDENTIAL)” (the “Non–Confidential Complaint”) and the other titled “COMPLAINT (CONFIDENTIAL)” (the “Confidential Complaint”)—and explained in each version that only the Non–Confidential Complaint, which contained only a brief description of the parties and the claims, would be served on Ms. Tung and BIO. The Firm declined to serve the Confidential Complaint, which it claimed to have filed under seal, because it contained “extensive attorney-client and other extremely confidential information” regarding Technical Furniture. 4
On December 21, 2011, the circuit court issued original process directed to each defendant, which would expire 120 days after issuance (on April 19, 2012). The Firm, however, made no effort to serve the defendants in that time frame or for two months after the 120–day period expired. On May 24, 2012, as a result of the Firm's failure to effect service, the court issued a Notification of Contemplated Dismissal:
Pursuant to Maryland Rule 2–507, this [proceeding] will be “DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION OR PROSECUTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE,” 30 days after service of this notice unless, prior to that time, a written motion showing good cause to defer the entry of an order of dismissal is filed.
On June 18, 2012, the Firm requested that the court reissue summonses, which it did that day. Then, on June 22, the Firm filed a Notice of Service, explaining that each defendant had been served with summons and the Non–Confidential Complaint. That same day, the Firm also filed its Response to Rule 2–507 Notification and Motion to Defer Dismissal, in which it explained that it intentionally delayed the filing of its complaint to protect the interests of its client, Technical Furniture, and that it only filed the complaint when it did “because [filing] was necessitated by the statute of limitations.” It continued that the Firm “was delayed in proceeding [with service] ... for the same reason as the delays in the initial filing, that it was protecting client interests and advocating on their behalf, all on related matters that effected [sic ] and impacted the causes of action in the instant lawsuit.” On this basis, the Firm requested that the court defer dismissal, recognize that the Non–Confidential Complaint had been served, and stay the case.
On July 16, 2012, Ms. Tung filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 2–322(a), alleging insufficiency of process and service. She contended that the Firm, on June 19, 2012, delivered to her an incomplete copy of its complaint (the Non–Confidential Complaint), and that she had yet to be served with a complete copy of the complaint (the Confidential Complaint). She argued that as a party to the litigation, she was “entitled to access under Maryland Rule 16–1002(f)” to a full and complete copy of the complaint. The Firm never responded to this motion.
On July 24, 2012, the Firm filed a Motion to Stay, asking the court to stay the case until a similar case, involving “joint clients of both [the Firm] and Defendants,” was resolved. (Emphasis in original.) The Firm contended that the court in the related case “issued an Order sealing all confidential client-related documents,” and that “[f]actual and legal issues, including the amount of damages, are likely to be decided in [the related case], that affect the issues to be resolved in the instant lawsuit.” Ms. Tung's response to the Firm's Motion to Stay, filed on July 30, 2012, incorporated her previously-filed Motion to Dismiss, noted that she still had not been served a complete copy of the complaint, and asked the court to rule on her Motion to Dismiss instead of staying the case. The court denied the Motion to Stay on August 6, 2012.
On August 20, 2012, Ms. Tung filed an opposition to the Firm's Motion to Defer Dismissal. She reiterated there much of what she had already argued: first, that the Firm had made no effort to serve the defendants with process for six months after filing its complaint; second, that the Firm only attempted to serve the defendants at all after the court issued the Notice of Contemplated Dismissal; third, that the Firm still had not served a complete copy of the complaint on the defendants; fourth, that the Firm had not demonstrated good cause for its delay; and finally, that she had been prejudiced by the delay.
On August 28, 2012, the circuit court entered an order denying Ms. Tung's Motion to Dismiss, but found the Firm's initial service attempt (of the Non–Confidential Complaint) insufficient. Instead of dismissing the case, the court gave the Firm another opportunity to serve Ms. Tung:
ORDERED, that [the Firm] shall re-serve a copy of the Complaint and all accompanying papers upon [Ms. Tung] and submit a new affidavit of service to the Court within ten (10) days from the date this Order is docketed. If [the Firm] fails to comply with this Order, this action will be dismissed.
(Emphasis added.) The BIO Defendants had also moved to dismiss on the same grounds raised by Ms. Tung on August 22, 2012, and on September 5, 2012, the court entered an identical order with respect to them. But despite these orders, the Firm never served Ms. Tung or the BIO Defendants directly. Instead, on September 6 and 7, the Firm served summons and the Confidential Complaint on counsel for each party.
On September 28, 2012, the court entered an order noting the Firm's failure to comply with its September 5, 2012 Order concerning the BIO Defendants and dismissing the case without prejudice as to them:
Upon review of the file, the Court finds that an Order was entered on September 5, 2012, requiring [the Firm] to file a new affidavit of service on [the BIO Defendants]. [The Firm] has failed to comply as directed. Therefore, this 26th day of September, 2012, by the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, hereby ORDERED, that [the Firm's] Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
The court did not mention whether the case was being dismissed with respect to Ms. Tung.
On October 11, 2012, the Firm filed a Motion for Reconsideration requesting that the court revisit its dismissal of claims against the BIO Defendants entered on September 26, 2012. The Firm argued that its service on the BIO Defendants' counsel was sufficient and that dismissal was inappropriate.
The Firm reasoned that service on counsel was appropriate because the BIO Defendants “accepted and acknowledged service, and that ... Defendants had responded to the Complaint.”
On October 24, 2012, Ms. Tung's counsel wrote a letter to Judge Davis–Loomis, the County Administrative Judge, asking that the case be specially assigned to a single judge to hear all open motions.
On October 31, 2012, before the court specially assigned the case, Ms. Tung filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with Terms of the Court's August 28, 2012 Order. The August 28, 2012 Order had directed the Firm to re-serve Ms. Tung with the Confidential Complaint within ten days of entry, but, as we explained, the Firm served counsel for Ms. Tung, not Ms. Tung herself. Ms. Tung argued that the Firm failed to comply with the August 28, 2012 Order because she never agreed to allow her counsel to accept service on her behalf, and that dismissal was appropriate.
The circuit court, through Judge Goetzke, entered an order on November 19, 2012, addressing both the Firm's Motion for Reconsideration of the September 26, 2012 Order (filed on October 11, 2012) and Ms. Tung's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with the August 28, 2012 Order. Judge Goetzke explained that the court “determined that, as of the date of this Order, it has no in personam jurisdiction over any defendant in [the] matter” and gave the Firm another chance to effect service:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jordan v. Elyassi's Greenbelt Oral & Facial Surgery, P.C.
...We hold that ... [the circuit court] did not abuse [its] discretion in so dismissing [the complaint]."); cf. Conwell Law LLC v. Tung , 221 Md. App. 481, 498-99, 109 A.3d 1227 (2015) (dismissal of an action for lack of jurisdiction, under Maryland Rule 2-507(b), is a discretionary matter tha......
-
Harris v. Johns Hopkins Health Sys. Corp.
... ... give the defendant fair notice of the action against him and ... the resulting fair opportunity to be heard .” ... Conwell Law LLC v. Tung, 221 Md.App. 481, 500, 109 A.3d ... 1227, 1238 (2015) (quoting Mooring v. Kaufman, 297 ... Md. 342, 350, 466 A.2d 872, ... ...
-
Payne v. Bore Express Inc.
...Rule 2-507(b), which governs lack of jurisdiction, may properly provide the basis for a motion to dismiss. See Conwell Law LLC v. Tung, 221 Md. App. 481, 509-11 (2015) (distinguishing between subsections (b) and (c) of Maryland Rule 2-507 and noting that the former may be raised with the co......
-
Loar v. Loar
...party may initiate recusal procedures by filing "a timely motion with the trial judge that the party seeks to recuse." Conwell Law LLC v. Tung, 221 Md.App. 481, 516 (2015) (quoting Miller v. Kirkpatrick, 377 Md. 335, 358 (2003)) (internal quotations omitted). The recusal motion must be "tim......