Walton v. Network Solutions (Ct. of Special Appeals)

Filed: February 26, 2015

Opinion By: Michael W. Reed

Holding: Appellant, Jeffrey Walton, failed to allege facts sufficiently specific to substantiate his claims against Appellee, Network Solutions, for violating either the Maryland Commercial Electronic Mail Act (“MCEMA”) or the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”), and his claims were timed barred under the applicable three year statute of limitations.

Facts: Appellant was the recipient of certain unsolicited commercial email (“spam”) from Appellee starting in 2009.  Appellant complained twice to Appellee, but continued to receive spam, which he alleged in his complaint was false or misleading as to where the spam came from and the information provided in the subject line of each email message.

Analysis: The Court began with the language of MCEMA, which specifically bars sending commercial emails that contain unauthorized, false or misleading information under section 14-3002.  Md. Com. Law Code Ann. § 14-3002 (2014).  Section 14-3002(b)(2)(ii) specifically bars “sending a message that contains false or misleading information about the origin or the transmission path of the commercial electronic mail.”  Appellant had asserted that Appellee had violated this provision because when Appellant sent a message to the reply-to address of Appellee, the message was returned indicating that the destination mailbox was full.  The Court concluded that this was not prohibited conduct under the statute because the statute did not require the mailbox to accept messages, only that it be a misrepresentation of where the spam originated from.  Moreover, the Appellant was able to determine from the sending email address to contact Appellee

Section 14-3002(b)(2)(iii) prohibits sending a message that contains false or misleading information in the subject line of the message.  The Court examined the subject lines of the emails attached to Appellant’s complaint, and concluded that because the subject lines of each such message were related to Appellee’s business of selling domain names, the subject lines did not, as a matter of law, have “the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving” the Appellant.  Instead, the case before the Court was factually distinguishable from a California case, Hypertouch, Inc. v. ValueClick, Inc., 123 Cal. Rptr. 3d 8 (Ct. App. 2011), because the subject lines in Hypertouchoffered free gifts without any limitation when the offer was actually far more limited.

Finally, the Court determined that Appellant’s claims under MCPA were time barred, holding that Appellant was aware on December 1, 2009 that Appellee had failed to remove him from Appellee’s email list, but failed to file a claim against Appellee until March 7, 2013 – more than three years from when he knew or should have known of the allegedly false or misleading conduct of Appellee.  Appellant’s claim here is premised on the statements of Appellee’s employees that Appellant was removed from the mailing list, but continued to receive spam after being told he was removed.  The Court concluded that such a claim had to be filed within three years, and that the continuing harm doctrine, which if applicable, might extend the limitations period for each new spam message received, was not applicable to the present matter.  The Court held that this argument was waived by not being raised and decided by the trial court at the hearing on the motion to dismiss, but that even if not waived, the continuing harm doctrine should not be applied to alleged violations of MCEMA.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Mathews v. Cassidy Turley Maryland, Inc. (Ct. of Appeals)

Filed: November 26, 2013

Opinion by Judge Robert N. McDonald

Held: (1) Under the Maryland Securities Act (the “Act”), the offer and sale of a tenant-in-common (“TIC”) interest in commercial real estate under terms requiring a mandatory management contract with an affiliate of the seller and granting the purchasers only a limited opportunity to change management involves a “security.” (2) The statute of limitations periods for claims brought under the Act for sale of an unregistered security and for transacting business as an unregistered broker-dealer or agent are not tolled by the judicially created discovery rule of Poffenberger v. Risser, 290 Md. 631 (1981), or under the fraudulent concealment provision of Md. Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings §5-203 (“CJ §5-203”). (3) The statute of limitations periods for claims brought under the Act for fraud in the offer or sale of a security and for transacting business as an unregistered investment advisor and for material misrepresentations made in that capacity are not tolled by the discovery rule of Poffenberger but may be tolled under the fraudulent concealment provision of CJ §5-203.

Facts: In 2003, petitioner, who had owned and managed rental properties for over forty years, sold eleven different properties through the respondent real estate brokerage for approximately $4 million. For favorable tax treatment petitioner sought to re-invest the proceeds in other real estate and based on the respondent’s advice, petitioner used much of the proceeds to purchase five fractional interests or TICs in various commercial buildings.

The TICs were all created by DBSI, Inc. of Idaho, or an affiliate. Purchasers of the TICs were required to retain DBSI or its affiliate as the property manager and in return the purchasers would receive a set annual rate of return on their purchase monies. The property manager could only be removed by majority vote of all TIC owners of a specific property and a new property manager could only be appointed by the unanimous consent of all the TIC owners. The TIC owners had no direct control over the property.

In 2008, after petitioner learned that DSBI would be suspending payments on certain properties, DBSI filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. The properties subject to petitioner’s TICs were foreclosed. The bankruptcy court ultimately found DSBI’s transactions to have been constructively or actually fraudulent. The Securities Division of the Maryland Attorney General’s Office contacted petitioner in 2009 in the course of investigating the offer and sale of the TICs in Maryland. On March 23, 2010, the petitioner filed suit in Circuit Court against the respondent for violation of the Act, breach of contract and common law tort claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence and constructive fraud. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the respondent on all counts finding in pertinent part that the TICs were not a security under the Act and, even if they were deemed a security, the petitioner’s claims were time barred. Following petitioner’s timely appeal the Court of Appeals granted certiorari to determine, inter alia, whether (1) the TICs are securities under the Act; and (2) whether the petitioner’s claims under the Act are time barred.

Analysis:  The Court of Appeals first analyzed the Act to determine if the TICs were securities. The Act broadly defines a “security” to include an “investment contract” but the meaning of the term “investment contract” was a matter of first impression for the Court.  The Court noted that when interpreting the Act, it may consider the federal Securities Act because the Act states that it is to be coordinated with the related federal law. Reviewing pertinent federal precedent, particularly SEC v. Howey, 328 U.S. 293 (1946), the Court determined that an “investment contract” was an investment of money in a common enterprise with an expectation of profits derived from the significant efforts of others.

In this case, the sole issue was whether the purchasers of TICs had an expectation of profits derived from the significant efforts of the property manager. The Court concluded that the Howey test was met because the profits were generated by the property manager’s actions. Even though the investors, acting collectively, had the authority to remove the property manager, the efforts by the property manager were no less dominant and essential to the success of the enterprise than are the efforts of the management of a corporation. The TIC investment was, therefore, held to be a “security” under the Act.

The Court then considered whether the petitioner’s claims under the Act were time barred. The petitioner’s private causes of action under the Act included allegations of respondent’s (1) offer and sale of an unregistered security, (2) transacting business as an unregistered broker-dealer or agent, (3) misrepresentations or omissions of material fact in the offer and sale of a security, and (4) violations of the investment advisor requirements of the Act (i.e., both lack of registration as an investment advisor and misrepresentations made in that capacity). The statutes of limitations under the Act for each of these various claims had lapsed.

The Court analyzed whether petitioner’s claims could be tolled by either (1) the Poffenberger discovery rule, which delays the accrual of the statute of limitations until when the wrong is discovered or when the wrong should have been discovered through reasonable diligence; or (2) CJ §5-203, which delays the accrual of the cause of action when the plaintiff remains ignorant of the cause of action due to the defendant’s fraudulent concealment.

Analyzing the private causes of actions under the Act, the Court found that Poffenberger discovery rule did not toll the relevant statutes of limitations. The Court compared the limitations provisions for the causes of actions involving lack of registration (of the security or as a broker-dealer) with the limitations provisions for causes of action involving misrepresentations and fraud. Citing Md. Code Corp. & Assn’s, §11-703(f)(1)&(2)(i), the Court noted that for the sale of an unregistered security or acting as an unregistered broker-dealer, a cause of action must be brought “after the earlier to occur” of (1) three years after the contract of sale or purchase; or (2) one year after the violation. On the other hand, citing Md. Code Corp. & Assn’s, §11-703(f)(1)&(2)(ii), the Court noted that for a violation of the anti-fraud provisions, a cause of action may not be brought “after the earlier to occur” of (1) three years after the contract of sale or purchase or (2) one year after “discovery of the untrue statement or omission, or after discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence.” The limitations provision applicable to the investment advisor requirements likewise requires such a claim to be brought no later than the earlier of (1) three years “after the date of the advisory contract or the rendering of investment advice” or (2) two years after “the discovery of the facts constituting the violation.” Md. Code Corp. & Assn’s, §11-703(f)(3). The Court concluded that because the limitations provisions applicable to anti-fraud and investment advisor violations under the Act includes their own discovery rule, the legislature did not intend for the Poffenberger discovery rule to apply to those violations. Further, the legislature did not intend for the Poffenberger discovery rule to apply to registration violations because it did not include a discovery rule in the limitation for those violations, as it did for the anti-fraud violations. Thus, the Court held the Poffenberger discovery rule to not apply to these private causes of action under the Act.

The Court analyzed next whether CJ §5-203 applied to the private causes of action under the Act. It found that CJ §5-203 did not apply to the violations of the registration provisions because a reasonably prudent buyer could have discovered those violations from publicly available information at the time of sale of the unregistered security or sale by an unregistered broker-dealer. However, CJ §5-203 could toll the anti-fraud violations because the tolling arises from the affirmative misconduct of the defendant and has been held applicable to limitations as to both statutory and common law claims. Finding no indication that the legislature did not intend for CJ §5-203 to apply to claims of fraud under the Act if plaintiff’s acquisition of knowledge of the violation is hindered by defendant’s fraudulent concealment, the Court held that CJ §5-203 could apply to anti-fraud claims under the Act. Because the issue of fraudulent concealment is fact-intensive and the Circuit Court did not explicitly consider whether the undisputed facts negated tolling under CJ §5-203, the Court reversed the Circuit Court’s grant of summary judgment for the  respondent to the extent the counts under the Act asserted claims for fraud.

The judgment of the Circuit Court was affirmed in part and reversed in part and the case remanded back to the Circuit Court.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Kumar v. Dhanda (Ct. of Appeals)

Filed May 2, 2012
Opinion By Judge Clayton Greene, Jr.

Held:
While nonbinding arbitration, mandated by the contract, may have constituted a condition precedent to litigation, pursuing arbitration neither postponed the accrual of the underlying breach of contract claims nor otherwise tolled the statute of limitations applicable to maintaining an action in court.

Facts:
Petitioner and Respondent entered into an employment agreement on August 28, 2001. The contract contained a non-compete clause which prohibited Respondent from practicing within a specified radius of Petitioner’s multiple offices or soliciting or accepting Petitioner’s patients for three years following the expiration of the contract, or through August of 2005. The contract also included a standard mandatory, non-binding arbitration clause.

The agreement was not renewed upon termination on August 31, 2002. Soon thereafter, Respondent filed an initial suit for breach of contract against Petitioner in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County seeking damages for a breach of contract based on Petitioner’s refusal to grant Respondent partner status and the withholding of certain monies.

Four months later, on February 26, 2003, Petitioner filed a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the action. The judge presiding in Anne Arundel County dismissed the action without prejudice on April 24, 2003, stating that the “claims are subject to mandatory arbitration,” but noting that “[t]he case may be reopened to enforce the arbitration.”

On April 29, 2005 Petitioner filed, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, a petition to compel arbitration and to appoint an arbitrator. The petition also included separate counts concerning the substantive claims for breach of contract and breach of the non-compete provision. On March 9, 2006, Respondent filed both a response to Petitioner’s petition to compel arbitration and his own motion to dismiss the substantive counts for improper venue and as claims subject to mandatory arbitration. Petitioner then filed a response to the motion to dismiss, offering to withdraw the substantive counts if the Circuit Court would compel arbitration in order to resolve the issues. The court dismissed the substantive counts on April 28, 2006, but did not order arbitration. On August 25, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment, urging the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to grant the earlier petition to compel arbitration. Following a bench trial on November 20, 2006 the  judge granted the petition to compel arbitration.

Petitioner submitted the matter to the arbitrator in March of 2008. The arbitrator denied all relief to Petitioner and also denied relief to Respondent, save for an award of $868.00 as reimbursement for certain disability insurance premiums.

Finally, on March 16, 2009, almost a year after the arbitration award was issued, Petitioner filed the instant action in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The complaint stated that “[t]he Agreement requires arbitration as a requirement before Plaintiff can pursue a remedy in court . . . [t]he matter went to arbitration, and a decision in favor of the Defendant was rendered in June of 2008. This matter is brought de novo.” Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the applicable three-year statute of limitations barred the action because the alleged breaches of contract occurred between 2002 and 2005. Petitioner filed in opposition, contending that, because completion of arbitration was a condition precedent to filing a claim, the statute of limitations had not begun to run until the arbitration decision of June 20, 2008. After a hearing and supplemental briefing by the parties, Judge McGann, of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County dismissed the action with prejudice.

Analysis:
The applicable statute of limitations is encompassed in § 5-101 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, which states: “[a] civil action at law shall be filed within three years from the date it accrues unless another provision of the Code provides a different period of time within which an action shall be commenced.” In the context of the statute of limitations, “[t]he law is concerned with accrual in the sense of testing whether all of the elements of a cause of action have occurred so that it is complete.” St. Paul Travelers v. Millstone, 412 Md. 424, 432 (2010). In the instant case, although not specifying the particular dates, both parties agree that the alleged breaches of contract occurred more than three years prior to the filing of the complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.

The cases Petitioner cites in order to assert that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until a plaintiff can “maintain his action to a successful result” all concerned whether the necessary elements of a cause of action had arisen under the facts that were presented. In the instant case, neither party disputes that all of the elements of Petitioner’s breach of contract claims existed, at the very latest, as of the dates upon which the applicable contractual provisions terminated.  Like the situation in Arroyo v. Board of Educ. of Howard County, 381 Md. 646 (2004), while resolution of the legal action must wait until the satisfaction of the condition precedent, the court’s jurisdiction may be maintained and the claim properly stayed prior to that time.

The court could find no applicable exception to § 5-101, or language within the Maryland Uniform Arbitration Act, §§ 3-201 to 3-234, that would toll the statute of limitations in this case. In Philip Morris v. Christensen, the court explicated for the first time two factors that continue to guide  consideration of whether to apply a judicial tolling exception in a particular case. In order for an exception to be applied the court must find that: “there is persuasive authority or persuasive policy considerations supporting the recognition of the tolling exception, and, recognizing the tolling exception is consistent with the generally recognized purposes for the enactment of statutes of limitations.” Philip Morris, 394 Md. at 238 (2006).  While, to be sure, arbitrating parties are on notice of any possible claims against them, thereby guarding them from stale claims, another purpose of the statute of limitations would be threatened by tolling in this situation. The court has repeatedly touted the value of statutes of limitations as not only ensuring fairness between the parties, but also as essential to judicial economy and the pursuit of diligence in litigation. Petitioner’s pursuit of his legal claims was not vigilant.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Ali v. CIT Technology Financing Services, Inc. (Ct. of Special Appeals)

Filed: October 5, 2009
Opinion by Judge James R. Eyler

Held: Section 5-202 of Maryland's Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article tolls the three year statute of limitations of Section 5-101 during the pendency of a bankruptcy proceeding. The case was remanded to the lower court to apply Section 11 U.S.C 349(b) and determine whether the damages to be awarded should be calculated based on the consent order issued by the bankruptcy court in a case that was later dismissed or the original contract executed between the parties prior to the bankruptcy filing.

Facts: The parties entered into a five year equipment lease in June of 1997 with monthly payments for an aggregate amount of $196,536. In May of 1999, the Lessee defaulted under the lease agreement and the outstanding payment sum of $158,760,86 became immediately due.

On June 11, 2001, the Lessee filed a chapter 11 petition in bankruptcy and in August of 2004, the parties entered into a stipulation and proposed consent order that was executed by the court which allowed the Lessor a general unsecured claim in the amount of $190,725.86, and an administrative claim in the amount of $53,200.

The Lessor received some portion of the payment towards the administrative claim but did not receive any payment towards its general unsecured claim by way of a distribution in the bankruptcy proceeding. On on July 12, 2006, the bankruptcy court dismissed the Lessee’s bankruptcy case without discharge of its debts. In January, 2007, the Lessor filed suit against the Lessee for breach of the lease and, alternatively, by amended complaint filed in March, 2008, to enforce the stipulation and consent order.

The Lessee's principal defense was that Lessor's claims was barred by limitation because the tolling of Maryland's three year statute of limitations was only suspended from the date on which the bankruptcy proceeding commenced until the date on which the bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay as to the equipment lease at issue.

The Lessor argued that Section 5-202 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article tolled the running of the statute of limitations during the entire bankruptcy proceeding.

The Lessee also contended that the Lessor was seeking more than what it was entitled to receive under the lease.

The Court of Special Appeals discussed, in a fair amount of detail, the history of bankruptcy law and its inter-relationship with state insolvency laws. Ultimately, it concluded that, under §5-202, the running of the statute of limitations was tolled during the entire period that the bankruptcy proceeding was pending. However, the Court vacated the judgment and remanded the matter for to the Circuit Court for a proper assessment of damages as determined by either the stipulation and consent order or the original lease. The Court also vacated the portion of the judgment awarding pre-judgment interest because it could not determine how the Circuit Court had determined the amount of pre-judgment interest that it had awarded.

The entire opinion is available in PDF.