WPCS }Z5ִq`"DEc^r[1A6Iʷ@~k^=6>M$-7{2WL>0*)=bQHbtTG(3xzVi GmS0nopEuzs"YS.j(ee٢BW֏MơyjqbEI[.8\=*u{4;!nNh7Yxwq.l:dP)\+{5Ҵ̉_*e③D $Ng_ᦩsF#F6z巳k# /*uW42X'R8IGЄyT^P?C 2+B0+)]|QpͥsIi۫E ԞP?{/VOw1Kx٧t#XU+N %g 0:m 0 0 0t 0V 05 0 0 0 0 0c 09 0  0 0 0s 0: 0 0 0} 0R 0$ 0 0 0 0N 0 0 0< 0& 08! 0:(# 0b# 0T$ 0C% 0/& 0' 0' 0( 0) 0* 0x+ 0 j, 0Y- 0E. 0./ 00 00 01 02 03 0}4 0l5 0X6 0A7 0'8 0 9 09 0: 0; 0< 0= 0k> 0T? 0:@ 0A 0A 0B 0C 0yD 0kE 0ZF 0FG 0/H 0I 0I 0J 1eK 7L 1e(L 7L 1mL 72M 1e:M 7M 1eM 7NUd* NU>JN 1uN 72NU(@/O^ oOw{O4OOO mO 0cO 1P 72PNP 1P 72`Q 1Q 72RKRU@aR 0VRRRRHP LaserJet 4250 PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,2D+G 0_level1  X ,"` ` hp x,23  ..  /% ` hp x/  2A+G 0_level2   ) hp x)23  ..  /% ` hp x/  2>+G 0_level3   &hp x&23  ..  /% ` hp x/  2;+G 0_level4  ` #hhp x#23  ..  /% ` hp x/  28+G 0_level5    p x 23  ..  /% ` hp x/  25+G 0_level6   p x23  ..  /% ` hp x/  22+G 0_level7  h pp x23  ..  /% ` hp x/  2/+G 0_level8     x23  ..  /% ` hp x/  2,+G 0_level9      x23  ..  /% ` hp x/  2DG 0_levsl1  X ,"` ` hp x,23  Ԁ  /% ` hp x/  2AG 0_levsl2   ) hp x)23  Ԁ  /% ` hp x/  2>G 0_levsl3   &hp x&23  Ԁ  /% ` hp x/  2;G 0_levsl4  ` #hhp x#23  Ԁ  /% ` hp x/  28G 0_levsl5    p x 23  Ԁ  /% ` hp x/  25G 0_levsl6   p x23  Ԁ  /% ` hp x/  22G 0_levsl7  h pp x23  Ԁ  /% ` hp x/  2/G 0_levsl8     x23  Ԁ  /% ` hp x/  2,G 0_levsl9      x23  Ԁ  /% ` hp x/  2DG 0_levnl1  X ,"` ` hp x,23   /% ` hp x/  2AG 0_levnl2   ) hp x)23   /% ` hp x/  2>G 0_levnl3   &hp x&23   /% ` hp x/  2;G 0_levnl4  ` #hhp x#23   /% ` hp x/  28G 0_levnl5    p x 23   /% ` hp x/  25G 0_levnl6   p x23   /% ` hp x/  22G 0_levnl7  h pp x23   /% ` hp x/  2/G 0_levnl8     x23   /% ` hp x/  2,G 0_levnl9      x23   /% ` hp x/  <:Default Para6n4Body Text    &&&?[%2A`Arial?  XXXS\\  `&Times New RomanS  0z.footer   %#?[%2A`Arial?XXXS\\  `&Times New RomanS   %#:8page number<D+G :Outline001_1   ," hp x,23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <A+G :Outline001_2   ) hp x)23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <>+G :Outline001_3 j  &hp x&23  ..  /% ` hp x/ j <;+G :Outline001_4  ` #hhp x#23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <8+G :Outline001_5    p x 23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <5+G :Outline001_6 j  p x23  ..  /% ` hp x/ j <2+G :Outline001_7  h pp x23  ..  /% ` hp x/  </+G :Outline001_8     x23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <,+G :Outline001_9 j     x23  ..  /% ` hp x/ j <D+G :Outline002_1   ," hp x,23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <A+G :Outline002_2   ) hp x)23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <>+G :Outline002_3 j  &hp x&23  ..  /% ` hp x/ j <;+G :Outline002_4  ` #hhp x#23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <8+G :Outline002_5    p x 23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <5+G :Outline002_6 j  p x23  ..  /% ` hp x/ j <2+G :Outline002_7  h pp x23  ..  /% ` hp x/  </+G :Outline002_8     x23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <,+G :Outline002_9 j     x23  ..  /% ` hp x/ j <A+G :Outline003_1   ) hp x)23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <A+G :Outline003_2   ) hp x)23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <>+G :Outline003_3 j 4 &<<hp x&23  ..  /% ` hp x/ j <;+G :Outline003_4   #p x#23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <8+G :Outline003_5    p x 23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <5+G :Outline003_6 j < DDp x23  ..  /% ` hp x/ j <2+G :Outline003_7    x23  ..  /% ` hp x/  </+G :Outline003_8     x23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <,+G :Outline003_9 j D  LLx23  ..  /% ` hp x/ j <A+G :Outline004_1   ) hp x)23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <A+G :Outline004_2   ) hp x)23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <>+G :Outline004_3 j 4 &<<hp x&23  ..  /% ` hp x/ j <;+G :Outline004_4   #p x#23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <8+G :Outline004_5    p x 23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <5+G :Outline004_6 j < DDp x23  ..  /% ` hp x/ j <2+G :Outline004_7    x23  ..  /% ` hp x/  </+G :Outline004_8     x23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <,+G :Outline004_9 j D  LLx23  ..  /% ` hp x/ j </+/ :Outline005_1/% ` hp x/23  ../% ` hp x/<D+G :Outline005_2   ," hp x,23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <A+G :Outline005_3 j  ) hp x)23  ..  /% ` hp x/ j <>+G :Outline005_4  4 &<<hp x&23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <;+G :Outline005_5   #p x#23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <8+G :Outline005_6 j   p x 23  ..  /% ` hp x/ j <5+G :Outline005_7  < DDp x23  ..  /% ` hp x/  <2+G :Outline005_8    x23  ..  /% ` hp x/  </+G :Outline005_9 j    x23  ..  /% ` hp x/ j 6789:;<= 35;AGMSY_1A.a.i.1.a.i.1.a.Q>i.-./01234 35;AGMSY_21.a.i.1.a.i.1.a.S5i.?@ABCDEF0 35;AGMSY_3A.a.i.1.a.i.1.a.UGi.$%&'()*+ 35;AGMSY_41.a.i.1.a.i.1.a.W,i.HIJKLMNO 35;AGMSY_51.a.i.1.a.i.1.a.YPi.%2A`Arial\  `&Times New Roman3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)]i)(9 Z(Times New Roman N;s *>8;SBackup3|x U(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.ga.(EhCEKQW]cioAutoList2a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.ja.(UhCEKQW]cioAutoList3a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.la.   (9 Z(Times New Roman (.3$ !USUS.,   p)USUS.,  _  Page  1  ڀof  12  !USUS.,  _  !    & %XX[&% %&    [XX%[&_X(iXX[XnOa s!W  oXXX_X(iJULY2009!W8݌  Ќ  oXXXoXXXXoX   OUTOFSTATEATTORNEYSEXAM  K  QUESTIONSANDBOARDANALYSIS `  @ QUESTION1  8  (20Points30Minutes)  `       OnAugust3,2008,Patrick,abusinessinvitee,sufferedmultipleinjurieswhenhefellinto  8  anabandonedwellonDalesfarmlocatedinCecilCounty,Maryland. $    SuitwasfiledonhisbehalfintheCircuitCourtforCecilCountyonApril10,2009.Dale   isthenameddefendantinthesuit,whichallegesthatDalesnegligencewastheproximatecause   ofPatricksinjuries.     Atthecloseofalltheevidencepresentedtothejury,Dalesattorneymovedforjudgment \ onthegroundthattheevidencepresentedwasinsufficienttosupportafindingthatDalewas H negligent,orinthealternative,thatPatrickwas_contributorily_Ԁnegligent.Thecourtdeniedthe 4 motion.  p   ThetrialwasconcludedonFriday,May1,2009.Thejuryreturnedaverdictinfavorof H Patrickandassesseddamagesat$52,000. 4   OnMonday,May4,2009,asdirectedbythecourt,theclerkofCourtmadethefollowing   entryinthecourtsdocketregistry:    VerdictforPlaintiff.Moneyjudgmentof$52,000awardedbyjuryto    Plaintiff!May1,2000. l   OnMay14,2009,DalesattorneyfiledaMotionforJudgmentNotwithstandingthe D! Verdict(NOV). 0"    OnJune3,2009,DalesattorneyfiledaNoticeofAppealtotheCourtofSpecialAppeals $X" ofMarylandfromtheverdictandmonetaryawardofthejury. $D #     OnJune15,2009,thetrialjudgedeniedDalesMotionforJudgment(NOV). &"%   a.WasDalesposttrialMotionforJudgmentNOVtimelyfiled? (#'   b.Whateffect,ifany,doestheNoticeofAppealhaveonthepending *%)   MotionforJudgmentNOV? l+&* Ї  BOARDSANALYSISQUESTION1 @  @  @p  @  @   @x  @       Q6789:;<=>(03]  0  0` G"G"  a.0` ` G"` G"DalesPostTrialMotionforJudgmentNOVwastimelyfiled.MarylandRule2 t 532statesthat,inajurytrial,apartymaymoveforjudgmentnotwithstandingthe ` verdict,onlyifthatpartymadeamotionforjudgmentatthecloseofallthe L  evidenceandonlyonthegroundsadvancedinsupportoftheearliermotion.Since 8  Dalemadethemotionsatthecloseofalltheevidence,heisentitledtofilethe $ t MotionforJudgmentNotwithstandingtheVerdict. `` G"` G" !    & %XX[&% %&  [XX%[&_X(iXX[X!  !t݌̌  _X(iXX_X(iXXX_X(i   !    & %XX[&% %&  [XX%[&_X(iXX[X X0 `  !   ` Rule532(b)statesthatthemotionmustbefiledwithin10daysafterentryof  2  Judgmentontheverdict.TheverdictwasenteredonMay4,2009.DalesMotion   forJudgmentNOVwasfiledonMa14,2009.Thatiswithinthe10daysofentry   ofthejudgmentbtheCourt.Additionally,MarylandRule1203(a)providesin   pertinentpartthat,incomputinganyperiodoftime,thedayoftheact,afterwhich z  thedesignatedperiodoftimesbeginstorun,isnotincluded.!݌` ` G"` G" Ќ  _X(iXX_X(iXXX_X(i   !    & %XX[&% %&  [XX%[&_X(iXX[X ,X!  !݌̌  _X(iXX_X(iXXX_X(i   ,  b.0 ` TheNoticeofAppealdoesnothaveanyeffectonthependingMotionfor ,| JudgmentNOV.MarylandRule8202(c),providesinpertinentpartthataNotice h ofAppealshallbefiledwithin30daysafterentry,disposingofamotionpursuant T to2532.ItfurtherprovidesthataNoticeofAppealfiledbeforethedisposition @ oftheMotionforJudgmentNOV,doesnotdeprivethetrialcourtofjurisdiction , todisposeoftheMotion.Inthiscase,DalefiledhisMotionforJudgmentNOV  onMay14,2009andhisNoticeofAppealonJune3,2009beforearulingonthe  JudgmentNOV.TheNoticeofAppealdidnotdeprivethetrialcourtfromruling  ontheMotionforJudgmentandtheCourtdid,infact,ruleontheMotiononJune  15,2009.x` G"` G" !    & %XX[&% %&  [XX%[&_X(iXX[X!  !݌̌  _X(iXX_X(iXXX_X(i     !    & %XX[&% %&    [XX%[&_X(iXX[X!g  QUESTION2!g"݌ 6 Ќ  _X(iXX_X(iXXX_X(i   !    & %XX[&% %&    [XX%[&_X(iXX[X!  !݌̌  _X(iXX_X(iXXX_X(i   (12Points25Minutes) !V [*,Xr` XX* r JameswaschargedintheCircuitCourtforMontgomeryCounty,Maryland,with ".! _kidnapping_,theftandrelatedoffenses.Therecordreflectedthathewasservedwithan #" indictment,awarrant,andanoticeofthepenaltiesofthevariouscharges.OnNovember22, $ # 2008,Jamesappearedwithoutanattorneyandthepresidingjudgedeterminedthathehadreceived % $ acopyofthechargingdocuments;thatheunderstoodthathehadarighttoanattorney;andthat &!% ifhecouldnotaffordanattorney,theOfficeofthePublicDefenderwouldrepresenthim.James z'"& indicatedthathehadspokentoanattorneybuthadnotyetretainedone. f(#'  r OnJanuary7,2009,Jamesappearedbeforeadifferentjudgeforastatusconferencewithout >*%) anattorneyandwasagainadvisedofhisrighttoandthebenefitsofhavingcounsel.James *+z&* indicatedthathedidwantapublicdefender. ,f'+ Ї r OnFebruary17,2009,Jamesappearedonhisfirstscheduledtrialdatewithoutcounseland  advisedthetrialjudgethathehaddecidedtorepresenthimself.Thejudgetoldhimthathewas  makingamistakeandagainwentoverwhyanattorneywouldbehelpfultohim.AfterJames  reiteratedhisdesiretorepresenthimself,heinformedthejudgethatthestatehadnotfurnished t discoverymaterialstohimandthathewantedtoviewcertainspecificpiecesofevidencebefore ` trial.TheStatewasorderedtoprovidecompletediscoveryandanewtrialwasscheduledforMay L  10,2009.TheStatecompliedwiththecourtorder. 8   r OnApril25,2009,beforeanotherjudgeformotionhearings,Jamesonceagainwas  ` questionedabouthislackofrepresentationanddeclaredhisintentiontorepresenthimself.  L   r OnMay10,2009,Jamesappearedbeforethecourtsadministrativejudgeandrequested $  apostponementofhistrialdateclaimingafailureofdiscoveryonthestatespart.Thisrequest   wasdenied.Jamesthensoughtacontinuancetoobtaincounsel;thisrequestwasdenied.Onthe   samedate,Jameswenttotrialbeforeajuryrepresentinghimselfprose.Jameswasconvictedof   alltheoffenseswithwhichhewaschargedandappealedhisconvictions.    r Jamesarguesthathewasimproperlydeniedhisrighttocounselandthatthetrialcourt,on \ May10,2009,erredinfailingtocomplywiththeprovisionsoftheMarylandRules. H  r a.WasJameswaiverofcounseldeficientundertheMarylandRules?  p  r b.Didthecourtabuseitsdiscretioninrefusinghisrequesttowithdraw H  r hiswaiverandpermithimacontinuancetoobtaincounsel?  4  S-./012345(00Q6789:;<=>0 r @{{){rG"rG"   BOARDSANALYSISQUESTION2   , r 0 ` r a.0` ` G"` G"No.Rule4215(b)addresses expresswaiversoftherighttocounsel.As X  indicatedinthefacts,Jamesmadeseveralcourtappearancesbeforedifferent D! judges,appearingwithoutcounsel, andassertedhis desiretorepresenthimself. 0"  HisformalwaiverofcounseloccurredonFebruary17. #p!` G"` G" !    & %XX[&% %&  [XX%[&_X(iXX[X ,!$.  !$..݌̌  _X(iXX_X(iXXX_X(i   ,0 r b.0` rG"rG"Rule4215(b)statesinpartthat Aftertherehasbeenanexpresswaiverno $D # postponementofascheduledtrialorhearingdatewillbegrantedtoobtaincounsel %0!$ unlessthecourtfindsitisintheinterestofjusticetodoso.&"%` G"` G" !    & %XX[&% %&  [XX%[&_X(iXX[X  !0  !01݌̌  _X(iXX_X(iXXX_X(i     !    & %XX[&% %&    [XX%[&_X(iXX[X!B2  !B22݌̌  _X(iXX_X(iXXX_X(i    ^+&* ЇQUESTION3   (23Points40Minutes)     r April1,2008,Plaintiff,aresidentofCarrollCounty,Maryland,wasdrivingher2008 ` Harrier_SUV_ԀonInterstate70inHowardCounty,Maryland.Plaintiffwastravelingat L  approximately60milesperhourandwasintheprocessofpassinganothervehiclewhen, 8  suddenlyandwithoutwarning,theleftfronttireofPlaintiffsvehicleseparatedfromthewheel $ t rimcausinglossofcontrol.TheHarrierrolledoverinthemedianbetweentheEastandWest  ` boundlanes.Plaintiffwasseverelyandpermanentlyinjured.  L   r InitialinvestigationfollowingtheaccidentindicatedthatneitherthePlaintiffnorany $  roadwayconditionorobjectcausedorcontributedtothehappeningoftheaccident.Examination   ofthetireandwheelrimrevealednoobviousdefectineither.    r PlaintiffpurchasedtheHarrierfromHowardCountyMotors,Inc.,aMarylandcorporation   of_Ellicott_ԀCity,onMarch10,2008.HowardCountyMotorsisanewcardealerforSotoMotor p CompanyofNewYork,Inc.,themanufacturerofHarriersandothervehiclewhichareproduced \ atvariousmanufacturingplantsintheUnitedStatesandelsewhere. H  r PlaintiffsHarrierwasproducedbySotosplantinPaducah,Kentucky.Thetireswere  p manufacturedbySuperiorRubberCompanyinAkron,Ohio,andthewheelandrimassemblies  \ werefabricatedbyCarParts,Inc.,ofDelmar,California.SuperiorRubberalsomakestiresfor H thesecondarymarketwithdealershipsthroughoutthecountry,includingoneinBaltimore, 4 Maryland.CarParts,Inc.sellsitsproductsonlytoautomakersinaccordancewiththe   manufacturersspecifications.CarParts,Inc.hasacontractwithSototosupplywheelrims   exclusivelyfortheHarrier_SUV_.   r OnOctober1,2008,PlaintifffilessuitintheCircuitCourtforCarrollCountyagainst  HowardCountyMotors,Inc.,SotoMotorCompanyofNewYork,Inc.,SuperiorRubber l Company,andCarParts,Inc.,claimingbreachofexpressandimpliedwarranties,strictliability X  andnegligence,allproperlyallegedintheComplaint.Basedonthegivenfacts: D!  r  `     h   0 r 0` rG"rG" a.CanPlaintiffobtainpersonaljurisdictionoverthedefendantsoranyof $X" theminMaryland?$D #` G"` G"  r  ` b.IsvenueappropriateinCarrollCounty? &"%  r  ` c.HowmayPlaintiffobtainserviceofprocessoneachofthedefendants? (#'  r  ` AnswerfullywithappropriatereferencestotheMaryland Rules.  |*%)  l+&*    AdditionalFactsPertainingtoQuestion3  @  0 r  rG"rG"    Assumethefollowingfactsforthispart: t  r EachofthedefendantswasservedwithasummonsandcomplaintonNovember3,2008 L   r SotosengineeringtestandanalysisofthetireandwheelrimassemblyofPlaintiffsHarrier, $ t conductedonJune1,2008,indicatedthatboththeleftfronttireandwheeldemonstratedlatent  ` defectswhichcontributedtoasuddenlossofairpressure.Sotosanalysisandconclusionswere  L  basedinpartondatageneratedbytheuseofcomputermodels.  8  0 r 0` rG"rG" d.BasedonthesefactswhatpleadingorpleadingsshouldSotofileinthis   caseandwhenshouldtheybefiled? ` G"` G" 0 r 0` rG"rG"e.Attrial,canSotointroducethecomputergenerateddataandconclusions? p Ifso,underwhatcircumstances? \` G"` G"    @r  @`  @  @  @h  @ BOARDSANALYSIS!QUESTION3  p  E!    & %XX[&% %&  [XX%[&_X(iXX[X  !>F  !>FF݌̌  _X(iXX_X(iXXX_X(i   "."  ? hp x,Xr` X?  .G2  a  .3   `   AstoHowardCountyMotors,Inc.,Sec.6102_CJ_ԀArt.Isapplicable.Facts B indicatethisdefendantwasorganizedunderthelawsofMarylandandmaintains . itsprincipalplaceofbusinessinthisstateandissubjecttopersonaljurisdiction..GH݌  Ќ *,Xr` X  X*   "."  ? hp x,Xr` X?  .-J2  b  .3   `   AstoSotoMotorCompanyofNewYork,Inc.,Sec.6103(b)(1)(2)&(4)are  applicable.Thefactsestablishthatthisdefendanttransactsbusinessandcontracts  tosupplyamanufacturedproductinMaryland.Italsoderivessubstantialrevenue z frommanufacturingproductsusedinthisstateandisallegedtohavecaused f tortuousinjuryinMarylandbyanactoromissionoutsidethestate.Thus,Sotois R  subjecttopersonaljurisdiction..-JJ݌ >! Ќ *,Xr` X  X*   !    & %XX[&% %&  [XX%[&_X(iXX[X!M  !MVN݌̌  _X(iXX_X(iXXX_X(i   "."  ? hp x,Xr` X?  .N2  c  .3   `   AstoSuperiorRubberCo.,Sec.6102(b)(4)&(5)areapplicable.Thefacts #`! establishthatthisdefendantregularlydoesbusinessinMaryland,derives #L" substantialrevenuefrommanufacturedproducts(tires)usedinthisstate,anduses $8 # orpossessesrealpropertyinMaryland.SuperiorsbusinessinMarylandis %$!$ continuousandsubstantialandrendersitsubjecttoexerciseofpersonal &"% jurisdiction..NxO݌ '"& Ќ *,Xr` X  X*     !    & %XX[&% %&  [XX%[&_X(iXX[X!RR  !RRS݌̌  _X(iXX_X(iXXX_X(i   3, X,Xr` X3 l(Uh80S-./012345! !"f3"    0   4 0` G"G" 4 f3pT2Uh  d  .3  0` ` G"` G"  AstoCarParts,Inc.,thefactsdonotsupporttheconclusionthatitissubjectto ~)$( personaljurisdictioninMaryland.MarylandsLongArmStatute,Sec.6103 j*%) providesforinpersonamjurisdictionoverallnonresidentdefendantswho V+&* purposelyavailthemselvesoftheprivilegeofconductingactivitiesinMaryland,  consistentwithheFourteenthAmendmentsdueprocessclauseasdeclaredbythe  UnitedStatesSupremeCourt.f3pTT݌` G"` G" Ќ    !    & %XX[&% %&  [XX%[&_X(iXX[X!W  !WVX݌̌  _X(iXX_X(iXXX_X(i   !    & %XX[&% %&  [XX%[&_X(iXX[X X0 `  !X   ` oXXX_X(iAdefendantmusthavecertainminimumcontactswithMarylandsuchthat Z maintenanceofthesuitdoesnotoffendtraditionalnotionsoffairplayand F  substantialjustice.Therefore,itisessentialthattheremustbesomeactbywhich 2  defendantpurposefullyavailsitselfoftheprivilegeofconductingactivitieswithin  n thisstateandinvokingthebenefitsandprotectionsofitslaws.(Poole&KentCo,  Z v._Equilease_ԀAssoc.,71MDApp91987).Merelyplacingproductsinthestream  F  ofcommerceisinsufficienttoconferpersonaljurisdiction.Thedefendants  2  conductmustbedirectedtowardtheforumstate.Thetestiswhetherornotthe   defendantcreatedasubstantialconnectiontotheforumstatebyactualand   purposefulactivitydirectedtotheforumstate,orotherwiseinvokedthebenefits   ofprotectionsofthelawsoftheforumstate.Underthefactsinthiscase,Car   Parts,Inc.isnotsubjecttopersonaljurisdiction.!XY݌~ ` G"` G" Ќ  oXXXoXXXXoX   X!    & %XX[&% %&  [XX%[&_X(iXX[X!c_  !c_`݌̌  _X(iXX_X(iXXX_X(i   !    & %XX[&% %&  [XX%[&_X(iXX[X X' X, X'!`   ` oXXX_X(iVenue .SuitcanbebroughtinHowardCountywherethecauseofactionarose P Ѐ  andwhereHowardCountyMotors,Inc.carriesonaregularbusiness,Sec.201_CJ_ԀArt. @ Ѐ  Allofthedefendantsinthiscasewhoaresubjecttopersonaljurisdictioncanbesuedin ,| Ѐ  HowardCounty,sinceoneofthedefendantscarriesonaregularbusinessintheareaand h Ѐ  thecauseofactionarosethere.!`a݌ T Ќ  oXXXoXXXXoX   !    & %XX[&% %&  [XX%[&_X(iXX[X X!d  !dTe݌̌  _X(iXX_X(iXXX_X(i   !    & %XX[&% %&  [XX%[&_X(iXX[X0   !e     ` oXXX_X(iSuperiorRubberCompanycarriesonaregularbusinessinBaltimoreCity.Thus, & allofthedefendantssubjecttopersonaljurisdictioncanbesuedthere.!ef݌G"G" Ќ  oXXXoXXXXoX   !    & %XX[&% %&  [XX%[&_X(iXX[X!Sh  !Shi݌̌  _X(iXX_X(iXXX_X(i   !    & %XX[&% %&  [XX%[&_X(iXX[X0   !i     ` oXXX_X(iSotoMotorscanbesuedinHowardCountyundertheaboveprovision.Itcanalso  besuedinCarrollCountywheretheplaintiffresidesbecauseitdoesnothaveaprincipal  placeofbusinessinMaryland.Sec.6202CJArt.Sec3;inHowardCountywherethe l causeofactionarose;orinanycountyinthestate.Sec.6202(11).!icj݌XG"G" Ќ  oXXXoXXXXoX   oXXXX!    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!l  !lm݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&0   !=n     ` Wherethereismorethanonedefendantandthereisnosinglevenueapplicable 0! toall,allmaybesuedinthecountyinwhichanyoneofthemcouldbesued,orinthe "l  countywherethecauseofactionarose.Underthefacts,HowardCountyisthemost #X! appropriatebutnottheonlyavailablevenue.!=no݌#D"G"G" Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!8q  !8qq݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX     !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&0   !r     ` ServiceofProcess :AstoHowardCountyMotors,Inc.servicewouldbemade %!$ onitsresidentagent,president,secretaryortreasurer.Ifnoresidentagentandgoodfaith & "% attemptstoserveoneofitsofficersfailed,servicecouldthenbemadebyservingthe '"& manager,adirectororlowerlevelofficeroranyotherpersonexpresslyorimpliedly (#' authorizedtoreceiveservice.!rTs݌)$(G"G"    oXXXoXoXXXoX     !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!v  !vv݌ l*%) Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX   _!    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&0   !tw     ` Deliverybyapersonovereighteenyearsofagewhoisnotapartyispermissible   bypersonallydeliveringtothedefendantacopyofthesummons,complaintandother  papers.!tw;x݌G"G" Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!y  !yz݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&0   !5{     ` Ifthereisnoresidentagent,substituteservicemaybemadeupontheState ` DepartmentofAssessments&TaxationperRule2124(m).!5{{݌L G"G" Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!d}  !d}~݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&0   !~     ` SotoMotors,asanonresidentNewYorkcorporationisrequiredtoregistera $ t residentagentinMaryland.Servicewillbemadeonaresidentagentinthemanner  ` providedforaresidentcorporationsuchasHowardCountyMotorSports,Inc.Ifnone,  L  substituteservicemaybemadeupontheDepartmentofAssessments&Taxation.Rule  8  2124(b).Certifiedmail,deliveryrestrictedtoaseniorofficeroraforeigncorporation, $  returnreceiptrequested,hasbeensanctionedbytheCourtofAppealssolongasitwas   reasonablycalculatedto_apprise_Ԁthedefendantofthependencyoftheaction.!~t݌ G"G" Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!+  !+ڃ݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX     !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&0   !     ` PleadingsofSoto :IfSotowantstochallengejurisdiction,venueorsufficiency   ofserviceofprocess,itmustdosobyapreliminarymotionunderRule2322.Failureto t fileamotionraisingtheseissuesresultsinwaiver.Eitherthemotionortheanswermust ` befiledwithinsixtydaysafterserviceofthesummonsandcomplaint.Filingofthe L motionextendsthetimeforfilingananswerforfifteendaysafterentryofthecourts 8 orderonthemotion.!G݌$tG"G" Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX     0   ` Inadditiontoananswer,SotoshouldfileacrossclaimagainstSuperiorRubber L CompanyandCarParts,Inc.Thecrossclaimshouldbefiledwithinthirtydaysafterthe 8 timeforfilingofSotosanswer.ThistimewillbeaffectedbywhetherornotSotofiles $ apreliminarymotion.Rule2331(b)(c)(d).G"G"       !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&0   !+     ` ComputerGeneratedEvidence :Theevidenceiscomputergeneratedevidence  asdefinedinRule2504.3.Itisvisualorothersensorydepictionofaneventorthingand  aconclusionformulatedbyacomputerprogramormode.Sotomayintroducesuch t evidenceifitprovideswrittennoticetoallotherpartieswithinthetimeprovidedinthe `  courtsschedulingorder,ifany,orwithinninetydaysbeforetrial.Amongotherthings, L! Sotomustprovideastatementofwhatthecomputergeneratedevidencepurportstoprove 8"  orillustrate,andpreservetheevidenceandfurnishittotheclerkofcourtinamanner $#t! suitablefortransmittalas!+݌$`"G"G" Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!ӎ  !ӎ݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX    p+&* !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&  !:  QUESTION4!:݌  Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX      @ (12Points20Minutes)      M&M,Inc.,aMarylandcorporationwithitsofficeandwarehousein_Garrett_ԀCounty, ` Maryland,isengagedinthetransportationandstorageofpersonalpropertyinMarylandand L  throughouttheeasternUnitedStates. 8    DavidandDan,alsoof_Garrett_ԀCounty,areemployedbyM&Mtodrivethecompany  ` truckstopickupanddeliverpersonalpropertyforstorageatM&Mswarehouseandtodeliver  L  storedgoodstodesignatedlocationsthroughoutitsservicearea.  8    DavidandDanbothclaimthatthecompanyhasunderpaidthemforovertimehours   workedintheyear2008.Davidclaims$25,000andDanclaims$31,000.     Afterafutileefforttoresolvethepayissue,DavidandDanretained_Rumbold_,aMaryland   attorney,withofficesinFrederickcounty,Maryland,toinstitutesuitagainstM&MsInc.to p recovertheclaimedamounts. \   _Rumbold_ԀfiledsuitagainstM&M,Inc.intheDistrictcourtforFrederickCounty, 4 Maryland,allegingeachclientsclaiminseparateparagraphsoftheComplaint.M&M,Inc.was  p appropriatelyservedatitsofficein_Garrett_ԀCounty.  \   Asattorneyforthecorporation,whatresponseorresponseswouldyoumaketothe 4 Complaintbaseduponthefactsrecited?    @{{){@  { BOARDSANALYSIS!QUESTION4   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&  !P   @ !P ݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX     Thesefactsraiseissuesofjurisdictionandvenue(alsoincludingthediscretionarypower  ofthetrialcourttotransferanactiontoanothervalidvenueonthegroundsof  forumnon l _conveniens_    ). X    !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!  !œ݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX     !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!h    M&Msattorneyshouldfileamotiontodismissbothclaimspriortothedateonwhich 0"  ananswerisrequired.Failuretodosowaivesthevenueissue.EastmanvYoung,250MD516; #l! Rule2322(a).!h݌ $X" Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX     !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!՟  !՟݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX     !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!*    Jurisdiction.TheDistrictCourtofFrederickCountydoesnothavejurisdictionoverDans %0!$ claimfor$31,000.ThisamountexceedstheDistrictCourtsjurisdiction:_CJ_Ԁ4401.Theamount &"% incontroversy exceeds$30,000.!*١݌ '#& Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX     !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!ڣ  !ڣ݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!#    TheDistrictCourtdoeshavejurisdictionoverDavidsclaimof$21,500.!#ҥ݌ )$(    oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!  !݌ |*%) Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!@    M&Mcanfileademandforajurytrialinwhichcasebothclaimswouldberemovedto   theCircuitCourtper_CJ_Ԁ4402(e);MDRule3.325.M&Mmustfilewithin10daysafterthe  timeforfilinganoticeofintentiontodefendMarylandRule3325.Failuretodosoconstitutes  waiver.MDRule3325(a)(2).!@݌ t Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!D  !D݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX     !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!    Venue.FrederickCountyisnottheappropriatevenueunderthefactsprovided.Venue L  issetforthin_CJ_Ԁ6201(a),_CJ_Ԁ6202and_CJ_Ԁ6203.!H݌ 8  Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX     !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!  !ï݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!]    OnthefactspresentedvenueisnotappropriateinFrederickCounty.M&Mcarrieson  ` aregularbusinessin_Garrett_ԀCounty,Marylandandmaintainsitsprincipalofficesthere.Thefacts  L  arenotsufficienttofindthatitcarriesonaregularbusinessinFrederickCounty.!] ݌  8  Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!   ! ϳ݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX     !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!u    Forumnon_conveniens_.MarylandRule3326providesforthetransferofanactionto   anothercountywhereactionmighthavebeenbroughtifitisfortheconvenienceoftheparties   andwitnessesandservestheinterestofjurisdiction.!u$݌   Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX     !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!$  !$ӷ݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!m    Bothplaintiffsanddefendantsareresidentsof_Garrett_ԀCountyandeitherplaintifforthe p defendantmayfileamotiontotransfer.!m݌ \ Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX     !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o& X!  ݀!V݌ H Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX   X!    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&  !  !μ݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX     QUESTION5   p (15Points25Minutes) H k  CommunityWatch,Inc.(_CWI_),comprisedofresidentsofKentCounty,Maryland,was   formedtomonitortheactivitiesofthecountygovernmentanditsvariousagencies.Inparticular,   _CWI_Ԁhasbeencriticalofthecountyzoningboard(Board)andwhat_CWI_Ԁcallsitsindiscriminate  grantingofvariancestothehomeconstructionindustrytopermitthedevelopmentofresidential  subdivisionsinviolationofthecountyzoningordinance.    OnMarch3,2009,afterapublichearing,inwhich_CWI_Ԁparticipated,theBoardgranted X  Builders,Inc.avariancepermittingittoconstruct20dwellingsinaplannedsubdivision.The D! BoardswrittendecisionwasdatedMarch16,2009,andacopywasreceivedby_CWI_ԀonMarch 0"  17,2009. #l!   OnApril16,2009,_CWI_ԀfiledapetitionforJudicialReviewintheCircuitCourtforKent $D # CountyincompliancewithMarylandRules. %0!$   TheClerkofCourtmailedacopyofthePetitiontotheBoardonApril17,2009.The '#& BoardmailedwrittennoticestoBuilders,Inc.and_CWI_ԀofthefilingofthepetitiononApril22, (#' 2009,andaCertificateofCompliancewasfiledwiththeCircuitCourtonthesamedate. )$(   OnMay1,Builders,Inc.filedaMotiontoDismiss_CWI_sPetitionforlatefiling. h+&*   Howshouldthecourtrule?     OnMay15,2009,theClerkofCourtsentwrittennoticesto_CWI_ԀandBuilders,Inc.ofthe  filingoftherecordmadebeforetheBoard. t   OnJune19,2009,Builder,Inc.movedtodismiss_CWI_spetitionforfailuretotimelyfile L  amemorandumasrequiredbytheMarylandRules.OnJune25,2009,_CWI_Ԁfiledits 8  memorandum.AjudicialreviewbeforethecourtisscheduledforSeptember25,2009. $ t   Howshouldthecourtruleonthemotion?Why?  L     @ BOARDSANALYSIS!QUESTION5      !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!t    Rule1203providesthatincomputinganyperiodoftimeprescribedbytheRulesorOrder   ofCourt,thedayoftheactualeventordefaultafterwhichthedesignatedperiodoftimebegins   torunisnotincluded!t#݌ p Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX     !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!  !݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!-    _CWI_sPetitionforJudicialReviewwasfiledonApril16,2009withinthe30daysallowed H byRule7293whichrequiresthatapetitionforjudicialreviewmustbefiledwithin30daysafter 4 thelatestdateofthedateoftheactionforwhichreviewissoughtorthedatetheadministrative  p agencysendsnoticeoftheorderoractiontothepetitioner,orthedatethepetitionerreceived  \ noticeoftheagencyorder.!-݌ H Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!  !X݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!    Thecourtshoulddenythemotiontodismissthepetitionforjudicialreview.!݌   Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!  !X݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!    WrittennoticeofthefilingoftherecordandbeforetheBoardwassenttoboth_CWI_Ԁand  Builders,Inc.onMay15,2009.!݌  Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!  !݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!P    Rule7207requiresthepetitioner,_CWI_,tofileitsmemorandumwithin30daysafter l noticeissentbytheClerkofCourt._CWI_Ԁdidnotfileamemorandumwithinthetimeprescribed. X  However,Rule78207(c)an7207(d)donotmandatedismissalunlessthecourtfindsthatthe D! opposingpartywasprejudicedbthelatefiling.!P݌ 0"  Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!z  !z)݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!    ThecourtreviewisnotscheduleduntilSeptember25,2009,andunlessBuilders,Inc.can $X" showprejudice,thecourtshoulddenytheMotiontoDismiss.!r݌ $D # Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!  !݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX     !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&  !+  !+݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX    h+&* QUESTION6  ( 10Points20Minutes)      OnSeptember1,2008,Waters,chargedwithafelony,appearedintheCircuitcourtfor d WashingtonCountyandprayedajurytrial.Thereafter,WatersretainedAttorneyBurnsandthe P  casewasscheduledfortrialonMarch1,2009. <    Oneweekbeforethescheduledtrial,BurnsnegotiatedapleaagreementwiththeAssistant  d StatesAttorneywhichwasacceptabletohisclient,Waters.However,contrarytolocalpractice,  P  Burnsfailedtonotifythecourtthatajurywasnolongerrequiredonthetrialdate.  <    WaterswaspresentonthetrialdatebutBurnsfailedtoappear.     TheassistantStatesAttorneyindicatedthatBurnshadcontactedhimapproximatelyone   weekpriortotrialandindicatedthathewasamemberofthecitycouncilof_Frostburg_,Maryland,   andthathewouldbeunabletoattendcourtduetolegislativeduties.However,Burnsindicated t thathehadsecuredsubstitutecounseltoattendinhisplaceand,byagreementwiththeStates ` Attorney,thecasewastobeenteredonthestetdocket. L   WhenthecasewascalledneitherBurnsnorsubstitutecounselappearedfortrial.Itwas $t laterlearnedthesubstitutecounselwasdetainedin_Frostburg_Ԁduetoasnowstorm.Ajurywas ` presentforthetrial.DefendantWaterswaivedhisrighttocounselandacceptedthestatesoffer L toplacethecaseonthestetdocket. 8   ThetrialjudgeissuedashowcauseorderdirectedtoAttorneyBurnsastowhyheshould  notbesanctionedfordirectcriminalcontemptanddocketedthecontemptproceedingasa  separateproceeding.Aspecialprosecutorwasappointedandthecontemptproceedingscheduled  foraseparatedate.Onthedatethatthecontempthearingwasscheduledtheoriginaltrialjudge  decidedtoproceedsummarilyagainstBurns.Afterthecourttookjudicialnoticeofthetrial p transcriptthecourtfoundBurnsindirectcriminalcontemptofcourt. \    a.CouldthecourtproceedsummarilyagainstBurns? 4"  0     b.Canthetrialjudgevacateteorderinitiatingcontemptproceedingsandconvert  $\" tocontemptproceedingsthataresummaryinnature?$H #G"G"   Explainfully.  & "% !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&  !  ݀!݌ ' #& Ќ  oXXXoXoXXXoX   !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!{   W$%&'()*+,(08l/ /!{*݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX   0  a.0` G"G"No.ThetrialcourtcouldnothavetreatedBurnsfailuretoappearasadirect )$(  contemptbecausepursuanttoMarylandRule15203Burns,thealleged *%) nOa  n n  _contemnor_,shouldbeaffordedanopportunitytopresentexculpatoryormitigating  information.` G"` G"  !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!]  !] ݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX     b.0 ` PursuanttoRule15203acourtagainstwhichadirectcontemptiscommittedcan t punishthecontemptsummarilyatthetimeitiscommittedorimmediatelyafter ` theproceeding.Whenthecourtchoosesnottosummarilypunishthe_contemnor_, L  itforegoesthechancetoproceedsummarily.Proceedingsummarilyatalaterdate 8  circumventscompliancewithMarylandRule16,204and15205.Thetrialcourt $ t thereforeerredinnotfollowingtheproceduresinRules15204and15205. `` G"` G" !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&!@  !@݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX     QUESTION7   8  !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&  !  !v݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX   (8Points20Minutes)       AndrewbroughtsuitagainstBerryRentalAgency.ThesuitcontendsthatAndrew   sufferedphysicalharmasaresultofBerrynegligentlyrentingahomewhichwasallegedto   containmoldandleadpaint.Andrewsleadpaintexpertwasdeposedbyvideotapewhichwas p stenographicallyrecorded.TheNoticeofDepositionspecifiedthatthevideotapeddepositionwas \ tobeusedattrial.Atthetimeoftrialhowever,Andrewdecidenottoofferthedepositioninto H evidenceaspartofhiscase.Berry,believingthatpartsofthedepositionhelpedthecase,asked 4 thecourtspermissiontoreadportionsofthestenographictranscriptintoevidence.Andrew  p objectedandrequestedthevideotapebeplayed.Berryexplainedhepreferredtoreadtheexcerpts  \ tosavetimeandavoidstoppingthevideotapeatirrelevantportionsofthetranscriptandat H portionsthecourthadpreviouslyruledinadmissible. 4   BOARDSANALYSIS!QUESTION7    !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o&  !  !݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX    YHIJKLMNOP(00W$%&'()*+,    a.0 ` Norulespecificallyallowstheprocedurethedefendantwantstoemploy.Rule  2419(d)isnotapplicablebecausethereisnoshowingthatthewitnessis  unavailable.Rule2419(a)(4)makesnomentionofusingthetranscriptbut l refersspecificallytothevideotapeandsaysinpertinentpart:Avideotape X  deposition8ofanyexpertwitnessmaybeusedforanypurposeeventhough D! thewitnessisavailabletotestifyiftheNoticeofDepositionspecifieditwasto 0"  betakenforuseattrial.#l!` G"` G" !    o& %XoX[&% %o&  o& %%[&oXX %o& X!  !H݌̌  oXXXoXoXXXoX   X  0  0` G"G"  b.0` ` G"` G"Rule2416(a)specificallyauthorizesastenographicrecordofthedeposition. $D # Readtogetherwith2419andabsentanyallegationorproofofprejudicewould %0!$ allowthecourttopermitreadingsofportionsofthestenographictranscript. &"% Additionally2419(a)(1)isbroadenoughtocoverthestenographictranscript.Its '#& difficulttounderstandwhytheruleswouldpermitastenographictranscriptifit (#' couldnotbeusedforsomepurpose.Inanyevent,theanalysisismoreimportant )$( inthisportionoftheanswerthantheconclusion.|*%)` G"` G" #_X(iXXoXؚj#  !    _&2%X_X(i[&%%_&2  [XX%[&_X(iXX[X!%