Semtek International v. Lockheed Martin (Balt. City Circuit Court, Bus. And Tech. Ct.)

Filed April 12, 2007—Opinion by Judge Albert J. Matricciani

Prior Proceedings:
Semtek sought to amend its complaint shortly before a trial in 2003 in order to add additional allegations and two new causes of action under Massachusetts law. The Court granted Lockheed’s motion to strike the amended complaint, with the modification that permitted Semtek to allege additional facts relating to intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, which was the single count before the Court for trial. At the close of Semtek's case, the Court granted Lockheed’s moved for judgment under Md. Rule 2-519. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, but remanded to the Circuit Court to consider the two additional Massachusetts causes of action that Semtek had tried to insert in the stricken amended complaint. On remand, Semtek engaged new counsel and filed a second amended complaint, which Lockheed moved to strike or dismiss.

Memorandum Opinion:
The Court denied the motion to strike the second amended complaint but granted with prejudice the motion to dismiss it. The Court found that the factual allegations were expanded significantly in the second amended complaint but the causes of action were the same as those asserted by Semtek in its first amended complaint. Because those were the causes of action the Court of Special Appeals had directed the Court to consider on remand, it would not strike the second amended complaint.

The Court determined, however, that the Court of Special Appeals had already conclusively determined that Lockheed had not interfered with Semtek’s prospective economic advantage and had not engaged in other tortuous conduct that had been alleged. Applying those conclusions as the law of the case, the Court determined that even with the additional allegations of the second amended complaint, Semtek’s claims under the Massachusetts causes of action could not withstand a motion to dismiss or summary judgment. The Court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice.

The opinion and order are available in PDF.

State v. Garnett (Ct. of Special Appeals)

Filed February 2, 2007. Opinion by Chief Judge Joseph F. Murphy, Jr.

From the official headnote of the case:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE; MOTION TO CORRECT
ILLEGAL SENTENCE: Although Md. Rule 4-345(a) does not entitle a defendant to relitigate an “illegal sentence” issue actually decided by the Court of Appeals or the Court of Special Appeals, that rule would be meaningless if the law of the case doctrine were extended to sentences that could have been -- but were not -- challenged as illegal at the time an appellant filed his or her first appellate brief. The law of the case doctrine therefore prohibits a defendant from attempting to once again present an “illegal sentence” argument that has been presented to and rejected by an appellate court.

The procedural history of the case was set forth in the previous trip to the Court of Appeals (in Garnett I) and was not repeated in this opinion, other than to note that in Garnett I, the order of restitution entered against Garnett was a penal sanction to which she was subject, despite a finding of guilty but not criminally responsible. As such, it was not subject to discharge in bankruptcy, and the State's motion to allow garnishment should have been allowed. On remand, Garnett sought to dismiss the garnishment motion, claiming the restitution order was illegal because she was found guilty but not criminally responsible and could not be held to account for the crimes for which she was convicted. The circuit court granted Garnett's motion to dismiss, and this appeal followed.

On consideration, the court concluded that the law of the case doctrine did not preclude raising the illegal sentence issue, since the Court of Appeals in Garnett I had noted the issue had not been before it. Further, the court rejected the State's claim that recent legislative changes to the Victim's Rights Act had effectively overruled the holding in Pouncey v. State, 297 Md. 264 (1983), finding that no sentence of restitution should have been imposed on Garnett, concluding that the illegal sentence of restitution was appropriately corrected, and affirming the judgment.

This opinion is available in PDF format.