LISY Corp. v. McCormick & Co.
| Decision Date | 07 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 1231, Sept. Term, 2013.,1231, Sept. Term, 2013. |
| Citation | 101 A.3d 530,219 Md.App. 592 |
| Parties | LISY CORPORATION v. McCORMICK & CO., INC., et al. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Steven M. Hecht (Thomas E. Redburn, Jr., Alison Price, Lowenstein, Sandler, LLP, Roseland, NJ) (Albert J. Mezzanotte, Jr., Ilana Subar, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, LLP, Baltimore, MD), on the brief, for Appellant.
David H. Bamberger (Edward S. Scheideman, Paul D. Schmitt, DLA Piper, LLP, Washington, DC), on the brief, for Appellee.
Panel: KRAUSER, C.J., BERGER and JAMES A. KENNEY, III (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
This is an appeal from a bench trial resulting in judgment in favor of the defendants-appellees, McCormick & Company, Inc. and Mojave Foods Corporation (collectively, “McCormick”) and against the plaintiff-appellant, Lisy Corporation (“Lisy”).1 Lisy presents three questions for our consideration,2 which we have consolidated and rephrased as a single issue:
Whether a completed case information report, on which an election of a jury trial is noted and which is filed with the complaint and served on the opposing party, is a proper vehicle for demanding a jury trial.
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that checking the “jury demand” box on the case information report is not a proper demand for a jury trial. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court for Howard County.
This case arose out of a business and employment dispute between Lisy, McCormick, and Barry A. Adams (“Adams”). Lisy is a manufacturer and distributor of various spices, seasonings, herbs, snacks, and chiles throughout the United States. McCormick is a manufacturer and distributor of seasonings, herbs, condiments, ethnic foods, desserts, and other specialty items. Mojave is a subsidiary of McCormick. Mojave has two brands that directly compete with Lisy.
Adams was an employee of Lisy and held the position of “Territory Manager.” Adams's territory included Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and parts of Pennsylvania. His responsibilities included overseeing Lisy's customers and customer accounts in the territory and maintaining contact with Lisy's customers in order to sell Lisy products to customers within the territory.
Lisy claimed that Adams abandoned his work for Lisy and began working for McCormick in violation of his employment contract. Lisy filed a complaint against Adams and McCormick on February 28, 2011 in the Circuit Court for Howard County, alleging, inter alia, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with business relations, and breach of Adams's employment contract. Along with its complaint, Lisy also filed a civil non-domestic case information report, which was subsequently served on all of the defendants. On the case information report, Lisy checked the “yes” box in the jury demand section.3 Lisy did not file any separate document demanding a jury trial.
On April 11, 2012, Lisy filed an amended complaint, adding a claim for violation of the Maryland Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The amended complaint made no mention of a demand for jury trial, and Lisy did not file any separate document demanding a jury trial.
On July 25, 2012, the circuit court issued a notice scheduling the case for a jury trial on September 17, 2012. A separate order from the court, also issued on July 25, 2012, clarified that the trial would actually begin on September 18, 2012 because Rosh Hashanah fell on September 17, 2012. This was the first indication from the court that the case would be scheduled as a jury trial.4
On August 29, 2012, the Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Duckett v. Riley, 428 Md. 471, 52 A.3d 84 (2012). Duckett involved a case in which a party checked the “yes” box for “jury demand” on a case information report which was filed with the court but not served on the opposing party. The party in Duckett did not file a separate demand for a jury trial. The Court of Appeals construed Maryland Rule 2–325(a) and concluded that the case information report form was neither a “paper” nor a “pleading” under the rule, “and, in any event, having not been served on the opposing party, is neither a proper nor timely means of demanding a civil jury trial.” Id. at 473, 52 A.3d 84.
Shortly after the decision of the Court of Appeals in Duckett, McCormick filed a “Motion to Confirm Non–Jury Proceeding” on September 6, 2012. Adams joined McCormick's motion on September 10, 2012, and Lisy filed an opposition to McCormick's motion on September 11, 2012. McCormick filed a reply on September 12, 2012.
On September 13, 2012, the trial judge's chambers telephoned the parties and informed them that the case would proceed as a non-jury trial and that the reasons for the court's decision would be placed on the record at the start of trial on September 18, 2012. When the parties appeared for trial on September 18, 2012, the trial court provided its findings and ruling on McCormick's motion. Applying Duckett, the trial court found that the case information report was not a pleading or a paper as contemplated by Maryland Rule 2–325 and that Lisy had waived its right to a jury trial under Rule 2–325.
Lisy moved to postpone the trial in order to seek appellate review of the court's ruling on the jury demand issue. The acting administrative judge granted Lisy's motion for postponement on September 18, 2012. Lisy subsequently filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals, asking that it order the circuit court to overturn the trial judge's decision and schedule a jury trial. The Court of Appeals denied Lisy's petition on November 15, 2012 without a written opinion.
The circuit court rescheduled the non-jury trial for April 15, 2013. The trial took place over ten days between April 15 and April 26, 2013. At the conclusion of Lisy's case, the circuit court denied the defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law. Following trial, the circuit court issued a memorandum opinion on July 22, 2013, entering judgment in favor of McCormick against Lisy. The circuit court found in favor of Lisy against Adams, entering judgment against Adams in the amount of $41,841.00 and costs.
This appeal followed.
The Court of Appeals set forth the standard of review appellate courts should apply when construing Maryland Rule 2–325(a) in Duckett, supra, as follows:
Duckett, supra, 428 Md. at 476–77, 52 A.3d 84.
The Court of Appeals further emphasized that the Maryland Rules must be carefully construed and strictly followed, explaining as follows:
Duckett, supra, 428 Md. at 477, 52 A.3d 84 (emphasis supplied).
Under the Maryland Declaration of Rights, litigants hold a constitutional right to a jury trial in certain civil cases. Duckett, supra, 428 Md. 471, 52 A.3d 84. Article 23 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights provides the following: “The right of trial by Jury of all issues of fact in civil proceedings in the several Courts of Law in this State, where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $15,000, shall be inviolably preserved.” Article 5 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights provides that “[t]he parties to any civil proceeding in which the right to a jury trial is preserved are entitled to a trial by jury of at least 6 jurors.” The Court of Appeals has explained, however, that the constitutional right to a jury trial may be reasonably regulated:
Although “inviolably preserved,” the right to have a civil jury trial may be regulated reasonably: “ ‘[I]ndeed, it is generally acknowledged that [the right to a trial by jury] can, for all practical purposes, become meaningless to the individual and burdensome to the state unless the exercise of it is regulated to some extent.’ ” Bringe v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lisy Corp. v. McCormick & Co.
...affirmed the trial court's ruling and held that Petitioner did not properly elect a trial by jury. Lisy Corp. v. McCormick & Co., Inc., 219 Md.App. 592, 604, 101 A.3d 530, 537 (2014). Additionally, the intermediate appellate court rejected Petitioner's arguments that Maryland courts should ......
- Allstate Lien & Recovery Corp. v. Stansbury
- Allstate Lien & Recovery Corp. v. Stansbury