Argument Schedule -- March, 2019


September Term, 2018


Thursday, February 28, 2019:

Bar Admissions

AG No. 6 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Raj Sanjeet Singh

Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Robert Charles Bonsib

No. 60 Elliot Dackman, et al. v. Daquantay Robinson, et al.

Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA, in upholding the admission of the testimony of an expert witness, fail to follow the appropriate standards elucidated in Lewin Realty III, Inc. v. Brooks (138 Md. App. 244 (2001) aff’d. 378 Md. 70 (2003)) and Sugarman v. Liles (460 Md. 396 (2018))? 2) Does it violate due process and fairness, and is it a miscarriage of justice, for a trial judge to sua sponte amend the scheduling order solely to the benefit of one party, and extend that party’s expert designation deadline by over a year, while simultaneously denying Petitioner’s request to amend their own expert deadline, extend the discovery deadline, and postpone the trial to alleviate the prejudice?

Attorney for Petitioner: Frank F. Daily
Attorneys for Respondent: Bruce H. Powell and John Amato

No. 59 Diane Steele v. Diamond Farm Homes Corp. 

Issues – Corporations & Associations – 1) Was Petitioner’s defense to a suit for HOA dues, that she did not owe dues for the amounts of increases imposed without the supermajority required under the Declaration of Covenants, invalid due to ultra vires or laches? 2) Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion with an award of attorney fees against Petitioner, since Respondent submitted no affidavit, lost in district court, and the principal recovered was less than one third of the awarded attorney fees?

Attorney for Petitioner: Thomas S. Rand, Jr.
Attorney for Respondent: J. Bradford McCullough


Friday, March 1, 2019:

AG No. 29 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jon. A. Lefkowitz

Attorney for Petitioner: Michael W. Blow, Jr.
Attorney for Respondent: Jon Ari Lefkowitz

No. 77 (2017 T.) In Re: Adoption/Guardianship of C.E.

Issues for reargument – Family Law – Whether the parental rights of both parents must be terminated in order to grant guardianship under FL §§5-323(b) and 5-325(a)(1), whether the termination of the parental rights of only one parent is required. See FL §5-323(b), stating "a parent is unfit..." and FL §5-325(a)(1), stating "terminating a parent's duties..."

Attorneys for Appellant: Joan F. Little and Janet Hartge
Attorneys for Appellee: Karl-Henri Gauvin and Jeffrey Dier

No. 57  MAS Associates, LLC, et al. v. Harry S. Korotki

Issue – Corporations & Associations – Did the trial court misinterpret and misapply the Revised Uniform Partnership Act, in conflict with the LLC Act, by creating a partnership among three non-member employees of a longstanding LLC after their attempts to negotiate an amendment to the LLC’s 2004 Operating Agreement with its members failed?

Attorney for Petitioner: Peter S. Saucier
Attorneys for Respondent: Neal C. Baroody


Monday, March 4, 2019:

JD No. 1 In the Matter of the Hon. Devy Patterson Russell

Attorneys for Petitioner: Kendra Randall Jolivet
Attorneys for Respondent: William C. Brennan, Jr. and Nicholas G. Madiou

No. 55  In Re: Adoption/Guardianship of H.R., E.R., & J.R.

Issues – Family Law – 1) Are the Department’s Permanency Planning Reports, which contain hearsay and double hearsay, inadmissible under the public records exception to the rule against hearsay? 2) Was CSA’s conclusion that the reports were admissible, based on its conclusion that they were an appropriate subject for judicial notice, in error? 3) Can the juvenile court admit documents for their non-hearsay purpose of forming the basis of an expert’s opinion and then, independently, rely on the evidence to support its basis for terminating a parent’s rights?

Attorney for Petitioner: Tamara D. Sanders
Attorney for Respondent: Ann M. Sheridan

No. 58 Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. William Edward Busch, Jr., et ux.

Issues – Torts – 1) May asbestos exposure to a specific defendant’s product be inferred from the defendant’s substantial presence in the facility? 2) Should juries be told that other defendants have been dismissed from the case when the complaints against them are admitted in evidence as admissions by the plaintiff?

Attorney for Petitioner: Mitchell Y. Mirviss
Attorney for Respondent: William G. Minkin



On the day of argument, counsel are instructed to register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.

After March 4, 2019, the Court will recess until April 5, 2019.