Bontempo v. Lare (Md. Ct. Spec. App.)

Filed: April 30, 2014

Opinion by: Douglas R. M. Zanarian

Holding:

(1) When a minority stockholder petitions a court for dissolution pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Corps. & Ass’ns § 3-413 (the “dissolution statute”), such stockholder’s rights will be informed by any existing stockholder agreement and, where there is no evidence of a deadlock of the board of directors or that the company is likely to become insolvent, the court has discretion under the statute to order alternatives to the extraordinary remedy of dissolution.

(2) The dissolution statute does not provide for personal liability, even if fraud is proven.

(3) The proper remedy when a court finds an officer or director has breached his or her fiduciary duties to the company by diverting money from the company for personal use is an order directing such officer or director to repay such money to the company, not an order requiring the company to declare equivalent distributions for all stockholders.

(4) An award of attorneys’ fees and expenses is only appropriate if the injured company has recovered a common fund.

(5) It is the trial court’s role to determine a party’s credibility and whether evidence is sufficient to support the existence of an oral contract.

Facts: Plaintiff became a minority stockholder of Quotient, Inc. (“Quotient”), a close corporation organized under Maryland law, in 2001. Plaintiff executed a shareholder agreement with the other stockholders of Quotient – the defendants, the Lares (a husband and wife collectively owning 55% of the stock in Quotient). In addition to being a director and officer of Quotient, Plaintiff was also an employee pursuant to an oral agreement with Mr. Lare, which Plaintiff alleged included that he would receive a salary equal to that of the Lares combined. In addition to certain “perks” (e.g., company credit cards for gas, meals and entertainment and a corporate fitness trainer), paid for by Quotient and received by Plaintiff and the Lares, the Lares began paying household employees from Quotient’s payroll account in 2006, advanced interest-free loans from Quotient to two companies in which the Lares had an interest and took a loan from Quotient for renovations to the Lares’ personal home. The relationship between Plaintiff and the Lares began to sour and in 2010 Mr. Lare terminated Plaintiff’s employment with Quotient after Plaintiff refused to voluntarily resign and sell his shares in Quotient. Plaintiff remained an officer and director of Quotient for six months after termination, however, and continued to receive distributions as a stockholder. Plaintiff filed suit against the Lares seeking relief pursuant to Maryland’s dissolution statute and asserted derivate claims on behalf of Quotient for imposition of a constructive trust, breach of fiduciary duty, and constructive fraud and a direct claim for breach of contract.

The trial court ruled in favor of Plaintiff as to his petition for dissolution; however, the trial court refused to dissolve Quotient and instead ordered Quotient to pay Plaintiff $167,638 in damages. The trial court also ruled in favor of Plaintiff as to his claim for breach of fiduciary duty and ordered that the misappropriated funds be treated as a distribution from Quotient and ordered Quotient to pay Plaintiff a proportionate amount, including attorney’s fees, but ruled in favor of the Lares as to Plaintiff’s claim for constructive fraud. The trial court ruled in favor of Plaintiff as to his claim for breach of contract and ordered Quotient to pay Plaintiff $81,818.18 in unpaid distributions, but refused to find an oral equal-compensation contract existed. Both parties appealed.

Analysis: The Court affirmed the holding of the trial court, including the trial court’s refusal to dissolve Quotient; however, it found that the trial court erred in how it allocated the damages.

Although the Court upheld the trial court’s finding, not contested on appeal, that Mr. Lare’s behavior met the standard for oppressive conduct, particularly his threat and ultimate firing of Plaintiff for refusing to voluntarily resign and sell his shares in Quotient, the Court also upheld the trial court’s conclusion that dissolution was not the only available remedy. The Court noted that it was Plaintiff’s status as a stockholder of Quotient, as defined by the shareholder agreement, that defined and bound the rights he was entitled to vindicate under the dissolution statute and the appropriate remedies. Unlike in Edenbaum v. Shcwarcz-Osztreicherne, 165 Md. App. 233 (2005), the Court noted that the shareholder agreement did not mention Plaintiff’s employment rights, thus the shareholder agreement did not give Plaintiff a reasonable expectation of employment or provide an enforceable to such. Instead, the Court found that Plaintiff was entitled to participate in distributions and the affairs and decisions of Quotient consistent with his status as a stockholder. Although Mr. Lare’s actions frustrated such rights, Plaintiff had resigned from Quotient’s board of directors and thus there was no evidence of a deadlock justifying dissolution, nor was there any evidence to suggest that, despite the use by the Lares of Quotient’s funds for personal expenses, Quotient was likely to become insolvent. Therefore, the extreme remedy of dissolution was inappropriate.

The Court also held that the Lares could not be personally liable under the dissolution statute, even if their actions constituted fraud, because the purpose of that statute is to vindicate the reasonable expectations of minority stockholders, in such capacity, against oppression by majority stockholders. Plaintiff’s injury as a minority stockholder was lost distributions, and thus, Plaintiff was made whole by accounting to determine how much money the Lares diverted from Quotient and an order to pay distributions to Quotient stockholders based on the amounts diverted.

The Court also agreed that the Lares had breached their fiduciary duties as directors and officers of Quotient by diverting money from Quotient for personal use; however, the Court held that the trial court erred in ordering a distribution to all stockholders as a remedy. The Court noted that it was Quotient, not Plaintiff, who was harmed because it was Quotient’s money that was taken by the Lares and, thus, distributions would not make Quotient whole but would instead take more money from Quotient. The Court held that the appropriate remedy would have been ordering the Lares to repay Quotient for the money taken. Because such payment would result in a recovery by Quotient of a common fund, the Court noted that an award by the trial court on remand of attorneys’ fees and expenses would be appropriate under the common fund doctrine.

Despite holding that the Lares had breached their fiduciary duties to Quotient, the Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling in favor of the Lares as to Plaintiff’s claim for constructive fraud. Although constructive fraud usually arises from a breach of fiduciary duty, the Court noted that they are not equivalent and that “a director can breach fiduciary duties without committing fraud.” The Court found that, although the Lares had used bad judgment in using funds from Quotient for their personal expenses, they had not engaged in a long course of illegal or fraudulent conduct, especially since all of the transactions were recorded on the books of Quotient and Plaintiff had access to such books. For the same reason, the Court found that the Lares did not act with malice.

Finally, the Court found that the trial court committed no error in refusing to find that an oral equal-compensation contract existed between Plaintiff and Quotient. Although Plaintiff and his wife testified to the oral equal-compensation agreement and evidence showed that Plaintiff was paid a salary equal to the Lares for four years, there was also evidence that, for multiple years in the beginning and towards the end of his employment, the salaries of Plaintiff and the Lares differed significantly. The Court noted that it was the trial court that heard the evidence and it was not for the Court to determine on appeal whether the trial court gave appropriate weight to the parties’ credibility.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Dynport Vaccine Co. LLC v. Lonza Biologics, Inc. (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: April 30, 2015

Opinion by: James K. Bredar

Holding: A basic ordering agreement that provides a framework for future contracts but fails to include mutuality of obligation is not by itself an enforceable contract.

Facts: Contractor and subcontractor entered into a basic ordering agreement, wherein defendant “agreed to provide certain services, pursuant to task orders.” Plaintiff issued various task orders, including three specific task orders mentioned in the complaint. Plaintiff brought suit alleging it incurred significant costs because of defendant’s refusal to perform and its breach of the basic ordering agreement.

Defendant argued the basic ordering agreement was not an enforceable contract and, therefore, the claim of breach of contract failed to state a claim for relief. Defendant conceded that the task orders were binding and legally enforceable contracts, but noted that plaintiff did not rely on breach of the task orders for its breach of contract claims.

Analysis: The “meager case law available” provides that a basic ordering agreement “is not an enforceable contract, despite its use of terms typically used in the language of contracts.” The court likened a basic ordering agreement, which only provides the framework for future contracts, to an agreement to agree because “contractual obligations will arise only after an order is placed.” Under such an agreement “no obligations are assumed by either party until orders are given by the [plaintiff] and accepted by the [defendant].”

The court reviewed the language of the basic ordering agreement in question, concluded it lacked mutuality of obligation and found it to be unenforceable. However, as both parties agreed the task orders were enforceable contracts, the court redefined plaintiff’s count as claiming breach of contract as to those task orders.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

TBC, Inc. v. DEI Holdings, Inc. (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: March 24, 2015

Opinion by: Catherine D. Blake

Holdings:

(1)   A corporate entity, in acquiring the assets of a predecessor, cannot be held liable solely based on continued use of a predecessor’s trade name, sale of a predecessor’s products, and retention of some of a predecessor’s accounts and employees.  

(2)   When a party does not allege facts to show that a corporate parent used its subsidiary “as a mere shield for the perpetration of fraud,” that party does not state a claim against the parent for the subsidiary’s obligations.

(3)   A party may state a claim for breach of contract without alleging perfect performance of its own obligations under the contract.

(4)   Maryland law does not recognize an independent cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealings.

(5)   A party may obtain restitution on the theory of unjust enrichment, despite the existence of an express contract, when the party breaches the express contract.

Facts:

Parent Defendant ("Parent") was the corporate parent of two subsidiaries, Subsidiary 1 and Subsidiary 2.  Additionally, four divisions of Parent were unincorporated until they formed LLCs in February 2014. 

Plaintiff, an advertising and public relations agency, was hired by Subsidiary 1, a consumer electronics vendor, to provide marketing services.  In 2011, Subsidiary 1 agreed to pay Plaintiff $12,500 each month for 83 hours of work per month.  In 2012, Subsidiary 2 hired Plaintiff under a similar agreement.  Plaintiff performed work beyond the monthly retainer for both entities and was paid additional fees accordingly. 

Subsidiary 1 later retained Plaintiff to perform advertising and marketing services for a new line of products on the terms outlined in the 2011 contract.  In 2013, Plaintiff worked 3,000 more hours than the 83 hours per month contemplated in the 2011 contract.  Despite this additional work, Plaintiff was paid monthly fees in 2013 based on the budgeted 83 hours per month.  Based on the experience of its leadership, Subsidiary 1 knew based on the nature of the requested work that it would require substantially more than 83 hours each month. 

In June 2013, Plaintiff’s Executive Vice President (the “VP”) met with three executives of Parent to discuss compensation for Plaintiff’s work in excess of the monthly budget.  The executives assured the VP that Plaintiff would be paid in full for the additional hours.  In August 2013, one of Parent's executives again told the VP that Plaintiff would be paid in full, and Plaintiff continued to perform more work until the Parent's executives informed the VP in January 2014 that Plaintiff’s services would no longer be needed.  Plaintiff was never paid for the 3,000 hours of additional work performed in 2013.

In February 2014, four LLCs (the “LLC defendants”) were formed from the four unincorporated divisions of Parent.  Subsidiary 1 also merged into Subsidiary 2. 

In September 2014, Plaintiff sued Parent, Subsidiary 1, Subsidiary 2 and the four LLCs alleging, inter alia, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealings, and unjust enrichment.  All defendants moved to dismiss. 

Analysis: 

(1)   The court first considered whether Plaintiff stated a claim against the LLC defendants.  Under the general rule of corporate successor liability, a corporate entity acquiring assets from another entity does not acquire the liabilities of its predecessor.  An exception is where the successor entity is a “mere continuation or reincarnation” of the predecessor entity.  The exception applies where there is continuity among directors and management, common shareholder interest, and, in some cases, inadequate consideration in the transaction.  Use of the predecessor’s trade name, sale of a predecessor’s products, and retention of the predecessor’s accounts and employees will not alone suffice.  Because the contracts predated the existence of the LLC defendants, and Plaintiff only alleged the latter three factors, Plaintiff failed to state a claim against the LLC defendants.

(2)   Next, the court considered Plaintiff’s claims against Parent.  In general, a parent corporation is not liable for the obligations of its subsidiaries.  The “corporate veil” may be pierced only in circumstances when it is necessary to prevent fraud or enforce a paramount equity, i.e., when the parent uses the subsidiary as a “mere shield” to commit fraud.  Plaintiff never contracted directly with Parent, but instead it contracted with Subsidiary 1 and Subsidiary 2.  Because Plaintiff did not allege facts to support Parent’s use of its subsidiaries to perpetuate fraud, Plaintiff failed to state any cause of action against Parent. 

(3)   The court then turned to Plaintiff’s contract claim against Subsidiary 2.  To state a claim for breach of contract under Maryland law, a plaintiff must only show (1) the existence of a contractual obligation owed by defendant to the plaintiff and (2) a material breach of that obligation by the defendant.  A plaintiff is not required to show that it complied with every procedural obligation described in the agreement.  Here, Plaintiff did not allege that it had obtained approval for additional work or that timely billed for the work, but these omissions were not fatal to the claim.  Plaintiff met its burden by alleging that (1) Subsidiary 2 was contractually obligated to pay for additional services beyond those contemplated in the 83 hour budget and (2) Subsidiary 2 failed to pay Plaintiff in breach of that obligation. 

(4)   The court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealings, noting that Maryland does not recognize this as an independent cause of action.

(5)   Lastly, the court addressed Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim.  In Maryland, a claim of unjust enrichment may not be brought where the subject of the claim is covered by an express contract.  An exception to this rule occurs when there has been a breach of contract, in which case a party may obtain restitution on the theory of unjust enrichment.  If a jury finds that Plaintiff did not substantially perform under the agreement, thereby rejecting Plaintiff’s contract claim, then Plaintiff may still recover for unjust enrichment.  Both the contract and unjust enrichment claims may stand as alternative, inconsistent theories of liability.

The opinion is available in PDF.

Tucker v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: February 3, 2015

Opinion by: Paul W. Grimm

Holding: A creditor waives an express condition precedent to a loan modification when it signs and accepts payments under that modification without satisfaction of the condition precedent.  

Facts: Plaintiff purchased a home through a mortgage loan and deed of trust, which she jointly executed with her husband (“Husband,” collectively “Plaintiffs”).  The deed of trust provided that Plaintiff could modify the terms of the mortgage loan without Husband’s approval.  Plaintiff later applied to her mortgage servicer for a permanent loan modification.  The servicer returned a signed copy of the modification agreement (the “Modification”), which stated that the modification was effective as of February 1, 2010.  Despite language in the Modification requiring signatures from both mortgagors, Husband never signed.  Plaintiff made payments under the Modification, which the were accepted.  The servicer later assigned the loan to Defendants.  Plaintiff continued to make payments pursuant to the Modification, which Defendants rejected, insisting that the Modification was ineffective.  Defendants reported to credit agencies that Plaintiffs were in default and appointed trustees to foreclose on the home.

Plaintiffs filed an action alleging, inter alia, violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, defamation, injurious falsehood, and breach of contract.  Defendants moved to dismiss.

Analysis: The Court found that all of Plaintiff’s claims hinged on the validity of the Modification. Defendants contended that the Modification was ineffective because the servicer never waived, in writing, the stated requirement of both signatures. The Court rejected this argument, reasoning that statements or actions may constitute waiver of a condition precedent in a contract. Although the Modification expressly required both signatures, the servicer waived this requirement through its actions of returning the signed Modification and accepting payments without Husband’s signature. After rejecting Defendants' statute of limitations arguments, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.

The opinion is available in PDF.

Knight v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: February 4, 2015

Opinion by: James K. Bredar

Holding: Under the Maryland Credit Agreement Act, Cts. & Jud. Proc., § 5-408, a borrower may not introduce extrinsic evidence to interpret ambiguities in a credit agreement where a claim for breach of contract is asserted as a means to directly defeat or attain modification of the credit agreement.

Facts: Plaintiffs obtained several loans from a bank secured by real property owned by plaintiffs. Within two years, the real property serving as collateral (the “property”) significantly declined in value and plaintiffs and the bank renegotiated the terms of the existing loans in a letter agreement. The letter agreement provided, among other things, that it was in the mutual interest of plaintiffs and the bank to have the property “engineered to obtain the highest and best use” and thus the bank agreed to pay for a market feasibility study and fifty-percent of reasonable costs for such engineering. Subsequently, the bank was placed into receivership and defendant purchased the bank’s assets, including the loans to plaintiffs. Neither the market feasibility study nor the re-engineering ever occurred and plaintiffs defaulted on the loans.

Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that defendant breached the letter agreement because, during negotiations leading up to the letter agreement, the bank agreed to obtain the market feasibility study, not just pay for it. Plaintiffs did not allege, however, that the bank’s obligation had been reduced to writing. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the claim.

Analysis: Applying an objective standard of contract interpretation, the Court found the letter agreement ambiguous as to which party was responsible for obtaining the market feasibility study. Further, the letter agreement was subject to the Maryland Credit Agreement Act, under which extrinsic evidence is barred in a dispute about a credit agreement if the borrower asserts a claim as a means to directly defeat or attain modification of the agreement. The court noted that extrinsic evidence nevertheless may be considered by a court if the borrower asserts a claim “notwithstanding the implicitly conceded enforceability” of the agreement, such as any claims that would serve as a set-off against any judgment. The Court found that plaintiffs’ allegations of the verbal agreement between them and the bank would modify the terms of the letter agreement and thus the Maryland Credit Agreement Act barred the Court from considering such evidence.

Although the letter agreement implied that when it was drafted, all parties expected a market feasibility study to take place, the Court found no evidence that either plaintiffs, the bank or defendant made an undertaking to obtain such study. This silence defeated plaintiffs’ allegations that defendant breached a contractual obligation and therefore the Court dismissed plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim against defendant.

In a footnote, the Court points out that if plaintiffs had alleged the bank promised to obtain the market feasibility study in writing, the court would face a “radically different” question, and such evidence would likely be considered in resolving the ambiguity in the letter agreement.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Kimberly Pinsky v. Pikesville Recreation Council (Ct. of Special Appeals)

Filed: October 30, 2013
Opinion by Judge Robert A. Zarnoch

Held:

Directors and officers of an unincorporated nonprofit association may be held liable for contracts entered into by the association if they authorized, assented to or ratified the contract in question.

Facts:

Defendant, an unincorporated nonprofit association, hired plaintiffs to work in a pre-school. Before the end of their respective contract terms, defendant terminated plaintiffs pursuant to letters of termination. Plaintiffs sued defendant and its individual officers and directors to recover payments still owed to them, plus treble damages, attorney's fees, and costs. After a three-day bench trial, the circuit court entered judgment for plaintiffs, but rejected the claims against the individual directors and officers. The court also declined to grant appellants' motions for sanctions and for attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiffs appealed  the adverse judgment with respect to the individual directors and officers and the court's rulings on sanctions, attorney's fees, and costs.

Analysis:

The Court of Special Appeals noted that as an unincorporated association, defendant had at least some formal organization, as it operated under a constitution, bylaws and policy manual. Citing Littleton v. Wells & McComas Council, 98 Md. 453, 455 (1904) and Restatement (Second) of Judgements Sec. 61 cmt. a (1982) the Court found that unincorporated associations had the right to sue and be sued and that a judgement against the association alone does not reach the assets of its members.  Further, although no law explicitly permits unincorporated associations to enter into contracts, the Court indicated that this is a long-recognized and uncontroversial power (see Miller v. Loyal Order of Moose Lodge No. 358, 179 Md. 350, 356).

At common law, officers of an unincorporated association were personally liable for the debts of the association. Since the Court of Appeals= decision in Littleton, 98 Md. at 456, and the Legislature's subsequent enactment of the legislative predecessors to CJP  Sec. 11-105, a judgment rendered solely against an association does not, on its own, expose the association's officers to liability. Yet CJP Sec. 11-105 does not address whether the officers, if named personally, can be held liable in actions also brought against the association. The Court quoted Littleton, which observed that "[t]he statute does not take away the right existing at common law to sue the members of an unincorporated association, but the creditor has the option to sue either the association or the members; and, when the suit is against the former, a judgment obtained can only affect its joint property." The Court noted that it does not read Littleton as positing an either/or system of recovery.

Officers and other agents of associations, such as the defendant, are statutorily protected from personal liability for damages in any suit if the association maintains insurance coverage. CJP Sec. 5-406(b). The Court noted that, absent such insurance coverage, personal liability could attach.  The Court then turned to the case law of other states for a better understanding of when officers are personally liable, and since the majority of states have not enacted comprehensive statutes on unincorporated associations, the common law still generally covers the principles of liability.  The Court found a distinction in the case law between for-profit and nonprofit associations.  Individual liability of a for-profit organization is analyzed under partnership principles; individual liability of a nonprofit association is analyzed under agency principles. Therefore, in nonprofit associations, "a member is personally responsible for a contract entered into by the nonprofit association only - if viewing him as though he were a principal and the association were his agent - that member authorized, assented to, or ratified the contract in question." (See Karl Rove & Co. v. Thornburgh, 39 F. 3d 1273, 1284).  The Court went on to discuss ratification, authorization and assent to a contract.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

TIG Insurance Company v. Monongahela Power Company (Ct. of Special Appeals)

Filed: December 21, 2012

Opinion by Judge Shirley M. Watts

Held:  Pennsylvania law applies to the interpretation of insurance policies where the policies are delivered to and paid from a company’s office within that state.

Facts: Appellee, a Maryland corporation, is a holding company that purchased numerous insurance policies from various insurance companies (hereafter collectively referred to as “insurers”). Among these policies were four Excess Insurance policies issued by appellant, which provided indemnification of appellee for loss exceeding certain amounts. On each of these policies, appellee listed a New York address.

In 2001 and 2002, appellee demanded that the insurers indemnify it for costs related to the settlement of asbestos suits that triggered the policies and informed insurers to expect thousands of additional. Following these demands, one of the insurers filed a complaint against appellee and the other insurers requesting a declaratory judgment for the purpose of determining what obligations were owed under the policies. In 2010, appellee filed a motion for partial summary judgment requesting that the court find that Pennsylvania law apply to all policies made within a certain timeframe. It argued that the policies were “made” in Pennsylvania because the policies were accepted through payment of premiums by its insurance managers in that state.  Appellant joined in the arguments of another insurer, contending that New York law should apply due to appellee's headquarters there.  The trial court granted appellee’s motion for partial summary judgment.

Analysis: The court engaged in a thorough analysis of contract construction, explaining that insurance policies are contracts and under the doctrine of lex loci contractus, absent a contractual choice of law provision, a contract will be governed by the law of the state where the last act necessary to complete the contract occurs. For insurance policies, Maryland appellate courts have consistently held that this occurs in the state where “the policy is delivered and premiums are paid.” In this case, there was undisputed evidence that this occurred in Pennsylvania.  The record showed that: 1) appellee’s insurance department was located in Pennsylvania; 2) its insurance broker was also located in that state; 3) it was the general practice of appellee for insurance policies to be received by the insurance broker and forwarded to appellee’s Pennsylvania office; 4) it considered itself bound by a policy after the policy was received in its Pennsylvania office, at which point it would begin paying premiums; and 5) premium payments were made from its Pennsylvania office.

Appellant contended that New York law should apply because appellee was headquartered in New York, making it reasonable to conclude that the policies were delivered to that state. The court, however, noted that a company being headquartered in a state does not mean that all contracts into which the company enters are made in that state. Because appellant offered nothing to show that the policies were delivered to New York or that the premiums were paid from New York, the court affirmed the lower court’s grant of partial summary judgment and found that Pennsylvania law applies to the interpretation of the insurance policies.

The court went on to address a separate issue raised by appellant regarding whether, under Pennsylvania law, appellant is entitled to a set-off against the appellee’s loss which reflects the settling insurers’ proportionate shares of coverage for responsibility of the loss. 

The full opinion is available in  PDF.

CR-RSC Tower I, LLC v. RSC Tower I, LLC (Ct. of Appeals)

Filed: November 27, 2012
Opinion by Judge Sally D. Adkins

Held: Where two parties enter into a contract for the lease and development of real estate and one party subsequently breaches that contract, evidence of post-breach market conditions is not admissible to prove lost profits if the parties did not contemplate the market conditions when they contracted.

Facts: Landlord entered into two 90-year ground leases with Tenant, a "successful real estate company," related to a tract of land in Maryland, consisting of two adjoining properties. Under the ground leases, Tenant agreed to construct two apartment buildings that it would sell after construction and initial rental. After temporary modifications, the parties reverted to their original plan to build two apartments and arranged financing for the first building. However, as construction began, Landlord failed to provide estoppel certificates and, as a result, financing fell through. In November 2006, Tenant sued for breach of contract, seeking recovery of lost profits. 

Tenant based its claim on market projections as of December 2006, the time of the initial breach. Landlord contended that, because in 2006 the apartments weren't projected to be fully leased until 2010 and 2012, the actual market conditions in 2010 and 2012 were relevant. Landlord sought to show that under the conditions of the current market, Tenant would not have profited regardless of whether there was a breach. Landlord offered expert testimony about the real estate market crisis in 2008–2010, a time when “the world . . . changed” and “the cataclysmic events of 2008 in the economy” took place. 

The trial court ruled against Landlord on several motions, including, among other things, that Landlord could not introduce evidence of the 2008 crash in the real estate market to show that Tenant would not have made profits.

The jury found for Tenant, awarding it over 36 million dollars in collateral damages. Landlord appealed, alleging that the trial court erred in not admitting evidence of “post-breach market conditions.” It argued that such evidence is a necessary part of any lost profits claim and that, without it, a plaintiff cannot meet the requirement that lost profits be proved with “reasonable certainty.” 

The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, citing the “general principle” that contract damages are measured at the time of breach.

Analysis: The Court engaged in a lengthy discussion of measuring lost profits and reliance  damages. The Court determined that “consequential lost profits are calculated with reference to what the parties can reasonably be said to have anticipated when they entered into the contract.” The Court explained that, for this reason, “circumstances that cannot be said to have been ‘known to the parties’ when they contracted—such as a post-breach boom or bust in the market—should not affect the measure of consequential damages that would ‘ordinarily arise’ according to the ‘intrinsic nature of the contract.’” 

The Court explained, although many contracts are made with the possibility of future market downturns and, accordingly, allocate such risk between the parties, the contract in this case did not. Under this contract, the success of both parties depended on a relatively stable market and it could not be said that a subsequent, unforeseen, “cataclysmic”  market crash was within the parties’ contemplation.  Thus, the Court held that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of post-breach market conditions.

The Court went on to discuss separate issues raised by Landlord regarding waiver of the attorney client privilege and joint and several liability.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Cowan Systems, LLC v. Jeffrey Shane Ferguson (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed:  August 3, 2012
Opinion by Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander

Held:  State law claims related to an employment agreement's confidentiality and non-soliciation provisions in the transportation industry are not preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act ("ICCTA") because the Act's preemption provision was created to ensure that the States would not undo federal deregulation with regulation of their own.

Facts:  Cowan Systems, LLC ("Employer"), a broker in the transportation industry, filed suit against Jeffrey Shane Ferguson ("Employee"), a former employee, for breach of his employment agreement, and Lipsey Logistics Worldwide, LLC ("Competitor"), also a broker in the industry, for tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, violation of the Maryland Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and civil conspiracy.

Employee entered into an employment agreement with Employer that contained confidentiality and non-solicitation provisions prohibiting him from from ever disclosing Employer's business secrets and from soliciting Employer's customers for one year post-termination.  Employee resigned from Employer and began working for Competitor, a direct competitor of Employer's, the next day.  Employer alleges that Employee violated his employment agreement by communicating and soliciting Employer's customers on Competitor's behalf before and after his tenure with the company.  Employer also claims that both Employee and Competitor are causing an immediate threat to Employer's business.

Competitor filed a motion to dismiss based on the premise that state law claims are preempted the ICCTA which provides in part, "a State...may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier...or any...broker...with respect to the transportation of property."  Employer opposed the motion.

Analysis:  The USDC for Maryland denied Competitor's motion following the ruling in Aloha Airlines, Inc. v. Mesa Air Group, Inc., No. 07-00007, 2007 WL 842064 (D. Haw. Mar. 19, 2007), which found that an intentional tort claim was not preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act ("ADA"), a federal law in which the Supreme Court has recognized as having a preemption provision with identical scope as that of the preemption provision of the ICCTA.  The Aloha Court found that courts have upheld state tort claims against entities subject to the ADA when those claims do not contravene the law's purpose to promote competition in that industry.  That Court concluded that to find otherwise would indeed undermine the purpose of the ADA which was to ensure the components of the transportation industry relied upon competitive market forces.  It found that the ADA's preemption provision was to prevent the States from superceding federal deregulation with its own regulation.

The Court denied Competitor's motion to dismiss finding that the same principles in the ADA apply to the ICCTA preemption provisions.  The purpose of the ICCTA preemption provision was to promote competition within the transportation industry and to free it from state laws and regulations that could interfere with interstate commerce.  The fact that Employer's claims against Competitor pertained to pricing information "should not serve to insulate Competitor from liability" because it engages in brokerage services.  Congress never intended to shield individual bad actors from "thwarting competitive enterprise."

The full opinion is available in PDF.

College Park Pentecostal Holiness Church v. General Steel Corp. (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed January 19, 2012.
Opinion by Judge Peter Messitte

Held: An arbitration clause in a contract may be unconscionable, and thus unenforceable, if there is stark inequality of bargaining power between the parties and the terms unreasonably favor one side over the other. 

Note: In this case, the court applied Colorado law pursuant to the terms of the contract (which is substantively similar to Maryland law).

Facts: This case arises from a contract dispute between a church and a building supplies company.  The church was located in Maryland; supplier was located in Colorado.  The church was presented with a contract and told they had one day to sign because a pricing special would no longer be available.  The church signed the contract with supplier which included an arbitration clause.  The arbitration clause provided 1) that any arbitration hearing shall be held in Denver, 2) any challenge that relates to whether claims are arbitrable shall obligate the challenging party to pay the attorney's fees and costs of defense to the non-challenging party, and 3) the party initiating arbitration shall advance all costs thereof. 

The church filed a breach of contract claim.  The supplier filed a motion to dismiss and sought to enforce the venue clause, thus forcing the church into arbitrating the matter in Colorado.  The church claimed that portions of the arbitration clause were unconscionable, specifically the venue and cost allocation provisions. 

Analysis: Under Colorado law, unconscionability requires an overreaching on the part of one party (i.e. inequality of bargaining power or an absence of meaningful choice by the second party) and contract terms which unreasonably favor the first party.  Factors relevant to an unconscionability analysis include:

"[A] standardized agreement executed by the parties of unequal bargaining strength; lack of opportunity to read or become familiar with the document before signing it; use of fine print in the portion of the contract containing the provision; absence of evidence that the provision was commercially reasonable or should reasonably have been anticipated; the terms of the contract, including substantive unfairness; the relationship of the parties, including factors of assent, unfair surprise and notice; and all the circumstances surrounding the formation of the contract, including its commercial setting, purpose and effect." quoting Davis v. M.L.G. Corp., 712 P.2d 985, 991 (Colo. 1986).

The Maryland case law governing unconscionability is similar to the Colorado law.  In Walther v. Sovereign Bank, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that unconscionability requires both a procedural and substantive unfairness.  386 Md. 412 (2005).   Procedural unfairness is evident by one party's lack of meaningful choice or unfair bargaining power.  Substantive unfairness is evident by contractual terms that unreasonably favor the other party.  Id. 

In this case, the court, following Colorado law, found that the church was in an unfair bargaining position because the church representative who reviewed and signed the contract did not have business acumen or benefit of counsel.  The court also found that the pressure to sign within one day added to the lack of meaningful choice.  The court also found the terms of the arbitration clause unreasonably favored the supplier because of the economic hardships the church would incur by arbitrating in Colorado rather than in Maryland.  The court also found the provision requiring the church to pay up front all costs of the arbitration and attorney's fees for the supplier was extremely unfair. 

The full opinion is available in PDF. 

Roger E. Herst Revocable Trust, et al. v. Blinds to Go (U.S.) Inc., et al. (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: October 26, 2011

Opinion by Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander

Held: When a tenant is contractually obligated to pay rent even after acts that could be considered termination of the lease as a matter of real property law, the damage principles of contract law apply and, in the absence of a lease provision with reasonable clearness to the contrary, a defaulting tenant is entitled to the benefit of any excess rent realized from reletting the premises.

Facts: Crest Net Lease, Inc., as landlord, entered into a triple net commercial Lease with Blinds to Go (U.S.) Inc. ("BTG"), as tenant, on September 21, 2011 and entered into a Guaranty with Blinds to Go Inc. ("BTG's Parent"), the parent company of BTG, on the same date for the guaranty of the obligations of BTG under the Lease. On August 21, 2011, Crest Net Lease, Inc. assigned all of its right, title and interest in the Lease and Guaranty with the Blinds to Go entities to the plaintiffs, Roger E. Herst Revocable Trust, Dr. Roger E. Herst, Trustee of the Roger E. Herst Revocable Trust, and Joshua R. Herst (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"). Under the terms of the Lease, all rent was due and payable on the first day of each calendar month during the term and there was a late charge of 3% of the monthly rent each time the rent was late and interest also accrued on all amounts that had not been paid to the landlord at the rate of 5.25%. On or about August 31, 2009, BTG abandoned and vacated the leased premises and sent a letter to the Plaintiffs on the next day informing the Plaintiffs of the decision to vacate the leased premises. In its letter, BTG informed the Plaintiffs that it would cease paying any and all rent and additional rent otherwise payable under the Lease and suggested that it was in the best interests of the parties to terminate the Lease due to the rental rates under the Lease being well below market rates and permit the Plaintiffs to directly recover a higher rent from a new tenant. Following receipt of the BTG's letter, the Plaintiffs sent a letter to BTG informing it the the Plaintiffs "fully rejected the unilateral termination" by BTG of the Lease and would hold BTG responsible for payment of all rent and expenses set forth in the Lease through the expiration date of the Lease. Subsequent to sending the letter to BTG, the Plaintiffs also entered into an Exclusive Leasing/Sales Agreement with StreetSense Retail Advisors, LLC ("StreetSense") to authorize StreetSense to act as the Plaintiffs' agent to obtain a new tenant of the leased premises. In attempting to find a tenant, StreetSense reached out to KLNB to see if any of KLNB's clients would be interested in the premises. BTG also contacted Bialow Real Estate, LLC ("Bialow") in an effort to find a new tenant for the leased premises. On November 30, 2009, Bialow sent KLNB, on behalf of Vitamin Shoppe a letter for intent to express Vitamin Shoppe's interest in the premises. The letter of intent eventually made it to the Plaintiffs and was countersigned by the Plaintiffs on December 7, 2009. On August 3, 2010, the Plaintiffs and Vitamin Shoppe executed a lease agreement (the "Vitamin Lease") for the premises with an initial term of 10 years. The premises were delivered to Vitamin Shoppe on September 1, 2010. Because the Vitamin Lease contained provisions that gave the tenant a build-out period of 90 days in which to make tenant improvements to the premises for purposes of getting the premises ready for Vitamin Shoppe's business and a building improvement allowance of up to $87,500. The Vitamin Lease's term began on December 1, 2010 and , unlike BTG's Lease, was not a triple net lease. For delivering Vitamin Shoppe as a tenant and because there were three brokers involved, StreetSense, KLNB and Bialow, the Plaintiffs' paid commission equal to $81,218.

The Plaintiffs filed suit against in the Fall of 2010 against BTG and BTG's Parent (collectively, the "Defendants") alleging breach of the Lease and the Guaranty and seeking recovery for damages incurred as a result of such breaches, including unpaid rent from the Defendants for a total of 23 1/3 months, representing the amount of time from Defendants' breach in September 2009 until when the Plaintiffs received rent payments from Vitamin Shoppe, late charges for unpaid rent, repayment of real estate taxes and utilities, reimbursement of brokers' commission, reimbursement for costs with entering into the Vitamin Lease, administrative costs, litigation costs, and prejudgment interest. In response to the claims of Plaintiffs, the Defendants challenged the reasonableness of the Plaintiffs' efforts in mitigating their losses, the reasonableness of some of the concessions made in connection with the Vitamin Lease, the necessity of the build-out period and the reasonableness of the tenant improvement allowance, the administrative charge, litigation expenses regarding zoning issues for Vitamin Shoppe's signage and brokers' commission. The Defendants also argued that the Plaintiffs' claimed damages should be prorated to account for the time period that the Vitamin Lease extends beyond the term of the BTG's Lease and that their liability should be offset by the surplus rent that the Plaintiffs are receiving as a result of the rent being charged under the Vitamin Lease being much more than that under BTG's Lease.

Analysis: Because the parties stipulated as to the amount of unpaid rent and the amount of late charges, the Court turned first to addressing the Defendants' arguments that the length of time it took the Plaintiffs' to execute a lease with Vitamin Shoppe was unreasonable. The Court noted that while the Defendants' claim that the Plaintiffs received four originals of the lease for execution from Vitamin Shoppe's attorney on May 15, 2010 but did not sign the lease until August 3, 2010, the Defendants failed to provide any evidence indicating whether the lease that was finally signed was identical to the lease that was delivered in May. Even with such evidence, the Court explained that it would not have mattered because not only did the exact terms of the lease provide that the projected delivery date of the premises would be on September 1, 2010 but that it was clear from the outset that the lease would not be executed until the end of 2010 due to the letter of intent expressing Vitamin Shoppe's desire for the premises to be delivered "on or about January 3, 2011." The Court then quickly dismissed the Defendants' argument that the inclusion of a 90 day build-out period was unreasonable in light of BTG having been granted a 180 day build-out period under its lease with the Plaintiffs. While the Court found the number of hours claimed by Dr. Herst for purposes of performing administrative services as a result of the Defendants' breach, the Court found the hourly charge of Dr. Herst to be commensurate with market rates and awarded the Plaintiffs' recovery of the administrative charges due to them being expressly allowed under the terms of the Lease, less the number of hours the Court found to be excessively high or covered as a result of professionals hired by the Plaintiffs. Similarly, to the other challenges of Defendants' questioning the reasonableness of the brokers' commission, the title fees, the litigation fees expended to unsuccessfully deal with a zoning issue for Vitamin Shoppe's signage, the Court found all such charges to be reasonable, within the ability of the Plaintiffs' to recover as a result of Defendant's breach and within market rates.

The Court next turned its attention to the argument of Defendants' that the damages should be prorated to account for the additional months of tenancy obtained by the Plaintiffs as a result of the term of the Vitamin Lease being longer than the remainder of BTGs' Lease. As support for their argument, the Defendants pointed to Wilson v. Ruhl, 277 Md. 607 (1967), and the Maryland Court of Appeals approval of the proration of a broker's commission that a landlord paid to procure a replacement tenant. The Plaintiffs argued that Wilson was inapplicable because it concerned a residential lease and not a commercial lease and, even if it applicable to commercial leases, it was overruled by Millison v. Clarke, 287 Md. 420 (1976). The Court first noted that Wilson's holding regarding the proration of a brokerage fee to exclude that portion of the brokers' commission that is for a term in excess of the breaching tenant did differ for residential and commercial leases and then explained that Millison only overruled dicta of Wilson that suggested that a landlord's reletting of premises for a term longer than the original term of the lease was the landlord accepting the surrender of the the premises by the original tenant and not the proration holding. The Court also found that while the express language of the Lease obligated BTG to pay the brokers' commission as one of the listed items that can be incurred in reletting the premises if there is a breach by BTG, it did not warrant disregarding the holding of Wilson. Therefore, with respect to the brokers' commission, the Court held that to the extent that amount requested for the brokers' commission would be reduced to allocate to the Plaintiffs that amount of the brokers' commission that was applicable solely to Vitamin Shoppe's tenancy beyond the balance of the remainder of BTG's tenancy under the Lease.

Turning to the Defendant's next argument, the Court addressed Defendants' argument that they were entitled to setoff the damages owed by them by the amount of the surplus rent that has already been received, and that will be received, by the Plaintiffs as a result of Vitamin Shoppe's rent under the Vitamin Lease being higher than BTG's rent under the Lease. The Plaintiffs' argued that the Defendants were not entitled to a deduction for such surplusage. Because neither of the parties cited any cases, the Court reviewed secondary sources and cases from other jurisdictions regarding Defendants' argument. The Court found the New York case Hermitage Co. v. Levine, 162 N.E. 97 (N.Y. 1928), to be particularly instructive. In Hermitage, the court held that "in the absence of a lease provision to the contrary, a defaulting tenant was entitled to the benefit of any excess rent realized from reletting." The court also acknowledged that a contract damages provision could be drafted in such as way to not require the landlord to account for surplus. In referencing the terms of the Lease, the Court noted that Section 17.2.3 of the Lease expressly authorized the Plaintiffs to relet the premises without terminating the Lease and required the Plaintiffs to apply any rent received by the Plaintiffs "to the account of [BTG], not to exceed [BTG's] total indebtedness to [Plaintiffs]". Because the express terms of the Lease required the Plaintiffs to apply any amount received from reletting to the account of the Defendants, the Court held that the Defendants were entitled to set-off as a result of the surplus rent being received, but that the surplus amounts had to be adjusted to account for present value of future surplus and, in light of the fact that BTG's Lease was a triple net lease and the Vitamin Lease is not a triple net lease, the amounts that would have been paid for taxes utilities and maintenance by the Defendants.

Lastly, the Court addressed the issue of prejudgment interest. Referencing Fourth Circuit precedent that applied state law to questions involving prejudgment interest and Maryland precedent setting prejudgment interest at 6% per annum unless another percentage is established by contract or statute, the Court held that the Plaintiffs would be entitled to prejudgment interest in the amount of 5.25% per annum, as set forth in the Lease, for unpaid rent and late charges beginning on the date due, but were only entitled to pre-judgment expenses for all other awards of damages, including the brokers' commission, the attorneys' fees, the administrative costs and any other amounts from the date of the Court's order until the date judgment was entered against the Defendants. The Court explained that pre-judgment interest was allowable for the unpaid rent and late charges from the date due because those amounts had previously become due and were capable of precise calculation from the date that they were due. The other damages could not have been determined precisely as of any date certain prior to the ruling of a trier of fact and therefore could not begin running interest until they became due and certain as a result of the resolution of the case.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Stalker Brothers, Inc., et al. v. Alcoa Concrete Masonry, Inc. (Ct. of Appeals)

Filed: October 24, 2011
Opinion by Judge Joseph F. Murphy Jr.

Held: The Maryland Home Improvement Law does not render a contract between a home improvement general contractor and an unlicensed subcontractor unenforceable. The statute was intended to protect the public under contractor-owner contracts and not contracts between contractors who engage in arms-length transactions with one another.

Facts: Alcoa Concrete Masonry, Inc. ("Plaintiff") was an unlicensed subcontractor providing work for Stalker Brothers, Inc. ("Defendant") on contract. The two companies did business together from 2004 to 2007. Payments were regular at first but the Defendant started to miss payments in 2005 and after an attempt to reconcile the amount due among themselves the Defendant began to miss payments again, eventually refusing to pay the Plaintiff altogether.

The Plaintiff contended that they had been intentionally misled by the Defendant and that the Defendant had signed Releases of Liens stating that all subcontractors had been paid for the work when in fact the Defendant knew they had not paid the Plaintiff thereby gaining access to funds not rightfully theirs. As a defense the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff had preformed this residential home improvement work while an unlicensed subcontractor in Maryland and as such contracts made by such an unlicensed subcontractor were illegal and unenforceable under the Maryland Home Improvement Law.

Analysis: In broad agreement with the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals [see HERE for a prior blog entry regarding the Court of Special Appeals opinion] the Court of Appeals applied the "revenue/regulation rule". Using this rule the Court distinguished between a contract between an owner and contractor as a contract covered under the Maryland Home Improvement Law, and a contract between a contractor and a subcontractor as not covered under this statute. The Court found that the purpose of the Maryland Home Improvement Law is to protect the public and not a method by which contractors could escape liability for past due amounts due to subcontractors that were unlicensed at the time they performed the contract.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Hospitality Partners, LLC v. Brewmasters Hotel, LLC (Mont. Co. Cir. Ct.)

Filed: September 12, 2011
Opinion by Judge Ronald B. Rubin

Held: A defendant cannot attempt to terminate a contract for cause under one termination provision and, upon failing to justify the termination and losing a jury trial, invoke a different termination provision (that it did not comply with) to argue that the plaintiff's "expectation interest" in the contract, and thus its claim for damages, must be limited.

Facts: A hotel management contract had multiple clauses providing for termination, including termination for "no cause" whereby the terminating party would owe only 6 month's notice. The defendant terminated the contract for cause, on the ground that the plaintiff was grossly negligent in performing. The plaintiff sued and won a $2.8 million damages verdict from a jury. The defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that, had it terminated the contract for no cause, it would have owed only six month's notice. The defendant argued that, because it could have terminated for no cause upon six month's notice, the plaintiff's expectation interest in the contract was limited to six month's worth of damages.

Analysis: The court held that the defendant was not entitled to invoke the "no cause" termination clause after attempting, and failing, to terminate the contract pursuant to a different clause. The court distinguished the case from other Maryland cases where a plaintiff's expectation interest was deemed limited to the amount of notice it was entitled to receive before termination of a contract: Cottman v. Maryland Dep't of Natural Res., 51 Md. App. 380 (1982) and Storetrax.com, Inc. v. Gurland, 168 Md. App. 50 (2006).

The court pointed out that the defendant had not invoked or attempted to comply with the requirements of the "no cause" provision. The contract was a complex set of interlocking promises and promised benefits. The parties clearly had the expectation that, absent good faith compliance with the express terms of the available termination provisions, the contract would last ten years. The defendant could have availed itself of the "easy out" of terminating for no cause if it had given notice and paid a small fee. Instead, the defendant chose another path and refused to give notice or pay the fee. After failing to justify its termination, the defendant was not entitled to invoke a different termination provision in order to cap its exposure to damages proven at trial.

The full opinion is available in .pdf.

Corona Fruits & Veggies, Inc. v. Class Produce Group, LLC (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: May 25, 2010

Opinion by Judge Richard D. Bennett

Held: On an appeal from the Secretary of the US Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), the United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied Petitioner’s request to remand the case to a California State court for a number of reasons (including, but not limited to, res judicata and lack of authority) and granted Respondent’s motion for summary judgment because there was no genuine issue of material fact since the Petitioner made the same arguments in the USDA hearing.

Facts: This case is about strawberries, trucking, pulp temperatures and rejected produce. Petitioner is an owner of strawberry farm in California and entered into a contract with the Respondent, who is a distributor, for the sale of flats of strawberries. The Petitioner packaged the strawberries and loaded them on a truck operated by a third party carrier at its place of business in California for shipment Free-on-Board, and informed the carrier that the strawberries must be kept in an environment cooled to a temperature of 32 degrees Fahrenheit. The Respondent initially routed the carrier to a large third party retailer in Virginia who rejected the strawberries upon arrival.

The shipment was then re-routed to Respondent’s location in Jessup Maryland. Upon arrival, a USDA inspection was performed on the strawberries while they were on the truck and the inspection found 24% of the strawberries were in a defective condition. Based on these results, the Respondent rejected the strawberries. The Petitioner, however, upon learning of the rejection, notified the Respondent that the strawberries were hot and that the Respondent had a claim against the carrier rather than the Petitioner.

After its rejection, the Respondent routed the shipment to a retailer located in Philadelphia, which accepted the shipment at a reduced price. The Respondent never paid for any of the strawberries, nor did it receive any of the sale proceeds collected by retailer in Philadelphia.

Subsequently, the carrier sued the Petitioner in California state court for failure to pay the transportation costs; and the Petitioner filed an informal complaint with the USDA seeking reparations for the rejected strawberries. The Petitioner also filed a cross-complaint against the Respondent in the California state court for its failure to pay for the strawberries.

The USDA Secretary ruled that the Respondent was not liable to the Petitioner because the Petitioner failed to ship strawberries in suitable shipping condition. The Petitioner appealed the USDA Secretary’s ruling in the US District Court for MD and the California state court action was stayed pending a final ruling.

Analysis: With respect to Petitioner’s request to remand the case to the California state court where its cross claim was filed against Respondent, the Court denied the Petitioner’s motion. The Petitioner argued that the Court should remand the case to the California state court because it was within the Court’s “inherent prudential authority and the “the abstention doctrine” to remand the case so it could be consolidated with the California state case, and argued, that if the remand was denied, that the Court should adopt the discovery conducted and certain evidentiary sanctions that were imposed on the Respondent in the state court case.

In denying the Petitioner’s request, the Court determined that: (i) since the California court did not originate the case, the Court could not remand the case to the California court, (ii) there were no exceptional circumstances in the case that would compel the Court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to any abstention doctrine, and (iii) there were no convincing reason for the Court to adopt the discovery rulings issued in the separate state court action. After making such determinations, the Court determined that the matter was properly before the Court and that the Petitioner had chosen to pursue redress through the USDA process rather than the completion of the state court proceeding, and that the resolution of the matter through the USDA process will result in res judicata as to the California state court action.

With respect to the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, the Court granted the motion because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a material issue of fact regarding the cause of the strawberries’ defective condition. Petitioner argued that it satisfied contractual obligations by ensuring that the strawberries were in suitable shipping condition at the time they were loaded in the truck, and maintained that the carrier should be responsible for their condition. Respondent alleges that the strawberries were in poor condition prior to being loaded onto the truck because they were overripe or otherwise damaged during the harvesting.

In the USDA hearing, the USDA ruled that the Petitioner bore the burden of showing both that the strawberries were in a suitable shipping condition at the time they were loaded and that the transportation conditions were abnormal. The USDA held that the strawberries were defective before loading even though the temperatures in the truck fluctuated during transport.

The Court reasoned that Petitioner’s declarations submitted by the Petitioner’s principles following the USDA hearing regarding the shipping of strawberries in general did not establish a genuine dispute regarding the condition of the strawberries during shipment. The Court found no material factual disputes from the Secretary’s original finding of fact, which is prima-facie evidence of the same on appeal, that the temperature conditions in transit did not adversely impact the strawberries. The Court also held that the Petitioner did not provide any evidence that the strawberries were properly handled prior to loading, and consequently, ruled in favor of the summary judgment motion since there was no genuine issue of fact existed as to the condition of the strawberries.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Antonio v. Security Services of America, LLC (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: March 31, 2010
Opinion by Judge Alexander Williams, Jr.

Held: (1) Parent of a company is not a proper party to suit against its subsidiary in Maryland under the corporate veil piercing doctrine due to the absence of a showing of fraud or a necessity to enforce a paramount equity; (2) Predecessor of a company is not a proper party to suit against its successor where there is no causality between the acts of the predecessor and the individual defendants; (3) Summary judgment granted to Corporate Defendants on breach of contract claim brought against them because Plaintiffs were not third party beneficiaries of the contract between security company and community developer; (4) Corporate Defendants held not liable for the acts of employee who took part in committing crime; (5) Summary judgment granted to Corporate Defendants on Fair Housing Act claim, claim for violation of 42 USC §1982(3), tortious interference with contract claim, and claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED").

Facts: The case arises out of an arson incident on December 6, 2004 where five men conspired to burn mainly minority-owned homes in Hunters Brooke, a neighborhood in Charles County, Maryland. The thirty-two Plaintiffs in this case are individuals who owned or had contracted to purchase homes in Hunters Brooke. The Plaintiffs sued the individual defendants (who have all already been found guilty or pled guilty to felony criminal charges arising from their participation in the arson), and corporate defendants SSA Security, Inc. ("SSA, Inc."), the security guard company, its parent ("ABM"), and its predecessor ("SSA, LLC") (collectively, the "Corporate Defendants") on allegations of violations of the Fair Housing Act, Maryland Fair Housing Law, 42 USC §1982, 42 USC §1985(3), and claims of tortious inference with contract and IIED. Additionally, the Plaintiffs sued the Corporate Defendants for negligence in hiring, training, and supervision, negligence, violations of the Maryland Business Occupations and Professions Code, and breach of contract. The additional counts against the Corporate Defendants arise out of the hiring and employment by SSA, Inc. of two of the individual defendants as security guards to work at Hunters Brooke during the time of the arson.

Analysis: The Court began with a corporate veil piercing analysis to determine whether ABM, the parent corporation of SSA, Inc., was a proper party in the case. Unlike other states where showing a high level of control by the parent over the subsidiary is sufficient, Maryland is more restrictive; the corporate entity will only be disregarded when it is "necessary to prevent fraud or to enforce a paramount equity." In Maryland, the application of a control or instrumentality exception does not apply. The Plaintiffs were successful in showing ABM's control over the operations of SSA, Inc. considering the following: (1) ABM owned 100% of the voting securities in SSA, Inc., (2) SSA, Inc. does not hold annual board meetings, keep corporate minutes, or conduct its own audits, and (3) all but one of SSA, Inc.'s officers are ABM's officers. Therefore, if the case had arisen under another state's laws that accepts the control or instrumentality exception to the corporate veil doctrine, the level of control would be sufficient to justify piercing the corporate veil.

In Maryland, however, liability cannot be attached absent a showing of fraud or necessity to enforce a paramount equity, which does not exist in this case. Plaintiffs argued that ABM is directly liable and therefore there is no need to pierce the corporate veil considering ABM involved itself in the daily operations of its subsidiary, including contracting, training, and rehiring employees. The Court disagreed, and applied the veil piercing doctrine to hold that ABM was not a proper party to the suit because Plaintiffs failed to show or plead fraud or a similar inequity.

The Court also agreed with the Corporate Defendants that SSA, LLC, the predecessor to SSA, Inc. was not a party to the case because it cannot be held directly liable for its hiring and training of the two individual defendants who committed the crimes. SSA, LLC originally hired the two defendants, but the defendants were terminated and forced to reapply for positions with SSA, Inc. The Court held that the facts do not indicate that SSA, LLC was involved with the Hunters Brooke property at the time of the incident and that all potential issues of vicarious liability should be directed at SSA, Inc. In Maryland, a successor may be liable for allegations of misconduct against its predecessor that ripen into findings of liability because a successor is on notice that these allegations exist. However, no such notice could exist for a predecessor to be aware of future bad acts by a successor. The rehiring of the individual defendants by SSA, Inc. breaks any possible chain of causality for SSA, Inc. and it is therefore not a proper party to the suit.

The Court also granted the Corporate Defendants summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The contract in question is the oral or implied one between the developer of the neighborhood and SSA, Inc. (there was no written contract in place). Plaintiffs argue that they are third parties beneficiaries of that contract. In Maryland, to recover for breach of contract as a third party beneficiary, a person must first demonstrate that the contract was intended for his benefit and it must clearly appear that the parties intended to recognize him as a primary party in interest and as privy to the promise. Without clarity that the contract was intended for the benefit of that person, the person is only an incidental beneficiary who cannot recovery for breach of contract. In this case, the Court held that the primary purpose of the contract was to protect the Hunters Brooke construction site at night from intruders. Even though the Plaintiffs have a vested ownership interest in the homes and therefore had some benefit from that protection, this benefit is not enough considering the developer was the primary beneficiary of the contract between SSA, Inc. and the developer.

The Court further granted partial summary judgment to the Corporate Defendants for alleged violation of Maryland Business Occupations and Professions Code Section 19-501 (licensing of security guard agencies) claim. After reviewing the legislative history and other considerations related to the statute, the Court held that the statute holds employer security guard agencies liable for acts of employees consistent with common law principles of vicarious liability, rather than strict liability for any acts committed by their employees while on duty. To determine whether the Corporate Defendants are liable under the statute, the Court will assess common law rules of vicarious liability by looking to see whether the employees acted within the scope of their employment or that SSA, Inc. ratified their actions.

Lastly, the Court granted summary judgment to the Corporate Defendants for claims under the Fair Housing Act and other civil rights statutes dealing with anti-discrimination (for failure to present evidence that the Corporate Defendants should be held directly or vicariously liable for violating these civil rights statutes), claim for IIED (for failure to find intentional or reckless conduct), and tortious interference with contract (for failure to establish intentional conduct).

The full opinion is available in PDF.