Lieberman v. Mayavision, Inc.

• Decision Date: 01 October 2010
• Docket Number: No. 2754, Sept. Term, 2008.,2754, Sept. Term, 2008.
• Parties: Melvyn LIEBERMAN, et al. v. MAYAVISION, INC.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

6 A.3d 315

195 Md.App. 263

Melvyn LIEBERMAN, et al.

v.MAYAVISION, INC.

No. 2754, Sept. Term, 2008.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Oct. 1, 2010.

Richard I. Chaifetz, Columbia, MD, for appellant.

Chandni Kumar (Greenberg, Felsen & Sargent, LLC, on the brief) Rockville, MD, for appellee.

Panel: ^* DAVIS, WRIGHT, GRAEFF, JJ.

GRAEFF, J.

On May 23, 2008, a Louisiana court entered a default judgment in the amount of $313,552 against appellants, Melvyn Lieberman and Lieberman & Walisko, in favor of appellee, Mayavision, Inc. ("Mayavision"), a Spanish language televisionstation. On July 29, 2008, Mayavision recorded the foreign judgment in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. On December 19, 2008, appellants moved to vacate the foreign judgment, arguing that the Louisiana court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. The circuit court denied appellants' motion.

Appellants noted an appeal and present two questions for our review, which we have rephrased slightly:

1. Did the circuit court err in denying appellants' motion to vacate the entry of the foreign judgment?

2. Did the circuit court err when it failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether appellantshad minimum contacts with Louisiana?

For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Mr. Lieberman, a Maryland resident and a licensed engineer, owns Lieberman & Walisko, a consulting engineering firm located in Silver Spring, Maryland. Mr. Lieberman's firm provides consulting engineering services to the telecommunications industry.

On May 19, 2005, Ernesto Schweikert, President of Crocodile Broadcasting Corporation, hired Mr. Lieberman and his firm to perform services relating to the operation of a radio station in New Orleans, Louisiana.¹ Mr. Lieberman sent a letter to Mr. Schweikert, stating: "This letter will confirm your retention of our firm to represent your group, and any other telecommunications entities owned by your group or you but not specifically named in this agreement in connection with various telecommunications engineering matters as you may require."

Mr. Schweikert subsequently became President of Mayavision, which was incorporated on February 2, 2006. He then "began exploring the opportunity of obtaining a broadcasting license and becoming the first all-Spanish-speaking television channel in Louisiana." Mr. Lieberman performed services in connection with this venture.²

The exact scope of Mr. Lieberman's services to Mayavision is a matter of dispute. Mr. Lieberman contends that he was hired "to provide consulting engineering services," and that, although he traveled to Louisiana, it was merely to review the "efforts of Mayavision's local telecommunications engineer ... to get Mayavision's television station operating and on the air." Mayavision, on the other hand, asserts that Mr. Lieberman was responsible for the design, acquisition, and installation of a new transmitter and antenna for the television station. It asserts that Mr. Lieberman came up with a plan to remove the old antenna from the station Mayavision acquired and install a new one using a "risky helicopter-based plan." Mayavision contends that the antenna and transmitter installation was "a complete failure," which resulted in "gross delays, escalated costs, and exposed Mayavision to substantial liability to other parties."

An equipment seller sued Mayavision in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in Louisiana, alleging breach of contract based on Mayavision's failure to pay for a "radio transmission system" and other "transmission equipment." Mayavision filed an answer and a cross-claim against appellants.

In early 2008, Mr. Lieberman "received a complaint which [Mayavision] filed in Orleans Parish, Louisiana against [him]and Lieberman & Walisko." Mr. Lieberman did not respond to the lawsuit.

On May 14, 2008, the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Louisiana entered a default judgment against appellants.On May 23, 2008, the court confirmed the judgment in favor of Mayavision against appellants for $313,552 as a result of "their breach of contract, negligent performance, and failure to perform."

On July 29, 2008, Mayavision filed a Motion to Enroll Foreign Judgment in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, requesting that the court enroll the Louisiana judgment in Maryland. That same day, the clerk of the circuit court issued a Notice of Foreign Judgment, which certified that the foreign judgment was recorded in the circuit court:

CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIV. "G-11" FILED ON MAY 23, 2008 IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF MAYAVISION, INC[.] AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS MELVYN LIEBERMAN AND LIEBERMAN & WALISKO IN THE AMOUNT OF THREE HUNDRED THIRTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($313,552.00), ENTERED.

On August 27, 2008, appellants filed a Motion to Vacate Entry of Foreign Judgment and Request for the Court to Refuse to Recognize and Enforce Said Judgment. Appellants argued that "the Louisiana court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants" because appellants did "not do business in Louisiana and physical 'contacts' with Louisiana are nonexistent." They asserted that "Mr. Lieberman went to Louisiana only at the specific request of plaintiff, otherwise he would have remained in Maryland. In short, they have not had purposeful physical contacts with the forum." Appellants requested a hearing on the motion.

On December 19, 2008, Mayavision filed an Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Vacate Entry of Foreign Judgment and Related Relief. Mayavision argued that "the Louisiana Courtproperly exercised 'specific' or 'special' jurisdiction over" appellants. It asserted that, in the course of providing consulting services to Mayavision, Mr. Lieberman " 'purposely availed himself' of the benefits of doing business in Louisiana and established sufficient 'minimum contacts' " with Louisiana. Mayavision appended seven monthly bills issued by appellants for consulting services from October 4, 2006, through May 30, 2007. These bills indicated that Mr. Lieberman made regular contact with persons in Louisiana by phone and email, and he traveled to Louisiana at least two times to work on the project.³

On January 12, 2009, a hearing was held on appellants' motion to vacate the foreign judgment. Counsel for appellants contended that "the Louisiana Court lacked personal jurisdiction over Mr. Lieberman for any purpose." Counsel noted that general jurisdiction requires "substantial, continuous, and systematic contact between the party ... and the state of Louisiana," arguing that this was "clearly missing here." He further argued that Louisiana lacked special jurisdiction over appellant, asserting that "fortuitous contacts" or "single transaction contacts just don't cut it." Counsel stated that "two trips down to Louisiana by Mr. Lieberman at the request of his client to come look at someparticular thing does not subject him to the jurisdiction of [the] Louisiana Court," but "even if it does, the jurisdiction of the Louisiana Court is limited to the purpose of the visit there."

Counsel for Mayavision argued that "this is your classic civil procedure International Shoe⁴ minimum contacts argument," and "the bottom line is ... defendant purposely availeditself of the privilege of conducting business in Louisiana." Counsel asserted that appellants " contracted with the plaintiffs in this case for the installation of an antenna and a transmitter for a television station," and "in furtherance of that project, that business contract ... [Mr. Lieberman] traveled to Louisiana on at least two occasions" and made "numerous teleconferences, mailings, et cetera back and forth in furtherance of the project." In counsel's view, "there are more than sufficient contact[s] that were made between Mr. Lieberman, his company and the State of Louisiana."

The court denied appellants' motion to vacate the judgment, finding that appellants had minimum contacts with Louisiana. The court explained its decision as follows:

This is an International Shoe minimum contacts due process consideration. Did, in fact, Melvyn Lieberman have sufficient contacts with the State of Louisiana that, whereby he would be put on not[ice], would he be taking advantage of the laws of Louisiana with a project? And would he also be available to be knowing that he would be hailed into court for possible suit?

This was not just a consult over the phone of what [do] you guys think we should do if we're going to put up a tower. This was a hands on, ongoing representation of the plaintiff on dealing with this tower. That is, Mr. Lieberman was very involved in this for a long period of time dealing with a lot of telephone conferences, dealing with the specs, and dealing with a structure. A structure that was put[ ] up regardless of whether it was put up well or not well, it was a structure that was put up.

* * *

But when he has an ongoing teleconference with the people in New Orleans, when he's taking on more of a role than a consultant, and is actually he is involved in the process of setting it up and how they're going to move it and what they're going to do. And he makes trips to the soil of Louisiana on a minimum of two occasions. And we'll say no more than two occasions. And he's putting up astructure or he's involved in a structure being put up. He knows full well and he should know well and he's on notice that if that structure falls and hits somebody, that suit['s] going to be in New Orleans or in Louisiana. If there's a suit on the contract or in the installation or the design of anything, that's going to be in the state of Louisiana.

The only saving grace that he had is that the laws of Maryland wouldn't apply. However, under due process and looking at the laws of Maryland on International Shoe and all the other cases that have been decided by our Court of

...