Maryland Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

Published on: March 21, 2017

Settlement of Dispute Over Non-Compete Agreement

Omni Imaging, LLC (“Omni”), a Maryland limited liability company, filed its lawsuit against our clients, Blue Ridge X-Ray Co., Inc. (“Blue Ridge”) and Richard A. Wilson, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, on or about October 12, 2016, alleging breach of contract, tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with prospective business advantage. Omni is an LLC in the business of selling and maintaining x-ray facilities and radiology products, accessories, supplies and services in Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. Mr. Wilson was formerly employed by Omni prior to joining Blue Ridge X-Ray Co., Inc. Blue Ridge is a North Carolina corporation and a national supplier of x-ray imaging equipment, service and supplies. Omni sued our clients over a dispute concerning a non-compete agreement signed by Mr. Wilson prior to leaving his employ with Omni. STSW was able to defend Blue Ridge and Mr. Wilson and reach a fair and reasonable settlement with the assistance of the Honorable Beth P. Gesner, U.S. Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

Omni hired Mr. Wilson in February 2010 to conduct sales and perform services on traditional and digital x-ray imaging equipment. As a condition of his initial employment, Omni required that Mr. Wilson sign a non-compete agreement, as well as provide a list of accounts that Mr. Wilson could bring from Kane X-ray, his previous employer. Mr. Wilson, under the encouragement of Omni and its president Bill Wills, compiled such a list and brought over several clients, with whom he had pre-existing longstanding personal relationships, from Kane X-ray to Omni. Omni relied heavily on the business that Mr. Wilson brought with him, as the medical imaging industry is highly competitive. And during the course of his employment with Omni, Mr. Wilson was dedicated to Omni’s business and maintained a strong work ethic. While working for Omni, Mr. Wilson noticed that its main competitor had started providing biomedical services, which generated a significant profit. Mr. Wilson thereafter began to research equipment sales and training programs pertaining to selling and servicing such equipment. After conducting individualized research and independent training on his own time, Mr. Wilson approached Bill Wills with the idea of initiating sales and service of biomedical equipment through Omni. As a precondition to receiving the training for implementing Mr. Wilson’s own idea, Bill Wills required that Mr. Wilson sign a second non-compete agreement. On March 18, 2015, Mr. Wilson, without the benefit of independent counsel, signed the Employee Non-Compete Agreement. That Agreement contained non-compete, non-solicitation, and confidentiality clauses. The Non-Compete Agreement specified that it would “survive the termination” of Mr. Wilson’s employment. In May of 2016, despite Mr. Wilson’s best efforts in his new sales region, Bill Wills informed Mr. Wilson that, unless he could meet a minimum threshold of $30,000.00 in quarterly sales, Omni would need either to reduce Mr. Wilson’s employment status to part-time, or to part ways with Mr. Wilson completely. Out of concern for himself and his family’s well-being, and having grown increasingly dissatisfied with his experience working with Omni, Mr. Wilson initiated an interview with Bill Lee, president of Defendant Blue Ridge X-ray (“Blue Ridge”). Blue Ridge hired Mr. Wilson, for a start in the month of July, 2016.

In its Complaint, Omni alleged that Mr. Wilson solicited Omni’s customers and employees in breach of the non-compete, non-solicitation, confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses in the Non-Compete Agreement. While disputing liability in this matter, we were able to secure a release of all claims and an agreement concerning the future interaction between our clients and any Omni customers. If you want more information, please feel free to contact William Sinclair at (410) 385-9116.

Published on: June 23, 2016

Federal Court Dismisses ADA Complaint

By William Sinclair

Businesses are obliged to ensure that their facilities comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act. But can anyone who believes he has found a violation somewhere sue to remedy it? The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland recently considered what types of plaintiffs may initiate such litigation, and excluded out-of-state persons that merely “test” faraway properties for ADA compliance.

The plaintiff in Nanni v. Aberdeen Marketplace, Case 1:15-cv-02570-WMN (D. Md. May 4, 2016), was a Delaware resident with a disability who said that he traveled along Interstate 95 into Maryland to visit with family and friends and attend various events. He alleged that he had stopped at Aberdeen Marketplace up to four times to rest and take a bathroom break. During those visits, he contended, he encountered various barriers to accessing the stores and services, defects that he believed ran afoul of the ADA. Asserting an intention to patronize to the shopping center up to three times a year and also test the facility’s compliance with the ADA, Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Represented by Silverman|Thompson|Slutkin|White, Aberdeen Marketplace moved to dismiss the lawsuit.

First, a little background on “standing”: To be able to bring a lawsuit, a plaintiff has to demonstrate that he suffered an injury in fact – that is, an actual or imminent invasion of a legally protected interest that can be remedied by a judicial decision. When a plaintiff requests injunctive relief, he also has to show a “real and immediate threat” of being wronged in the future, a likelihood that is greater than a “mere possibility.” Applied in the context of Plaintiff’s lawsuit, he had to describe “specific concrete plans” to return to Aberdeen Marketplace and how he would be similarly injured during those future visits.

Continue reading →

Published on: February 25, 2016

Apple v. DOJ/FBI – Is Justice Scalia Rolling Over in His Grave?

By Anne T. McKenna

Long a consistent and ardent judicial champion of the constitutional protections afforded citizens under the Fourth and Sixth Amendments, one cannot help but wonder how Justice Scalia would have viewed the showdown between Apple and the Department of Justice.
Continue reading →

Published on: February 8, 2016

Spoliation – The oft mispronounced Rule of Evidence that Every Business Person Needs to Know

By William Sinclair

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland issued an opinion this week that serves as a reminder that a party’s simple failure to preserve evidence can sometimes snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The case (and link) is Cumberland Insurance Group v. Delmarva Power.
Continue reading →

Published on: January 4, 2016

Appellate Courts Clarify ADR Procedure

By William Sinclair

It’s no secret that the Court of Special Appeals has been increasingly overwhelmed with cases, nor is it a secret that the Court would like to see a lot of these cases resolved or otherwise cleaned up before having to spend time on them. Those concerns led to the creation of the Court’s ADR Division and accompanying procedures for steering the parties toward settlement or streamlining of the appellate process. After trying those out for a while, however, the Maryland Courts’ Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure identified some kinks, inefficiencies, and redundancies in the overall system, and proposed some related rules changes that were adopted by the Court of Appeals this month.
Continue reading →

Published on: November 25, 2015

COSA Clarifies Shenker Exception

By William Sinclair

In its 2009 decision in Shenker v. Laureate Educ., Inc., 411 Md. 317, the Court of Appeals of Maryland inserted a caveat in the premise that shareholder lawsuits against corporate directors must be pursued as a derivative action on behalf of the corporation itself. By declaring that a corporation’s impending sale gave rise to common-law duties by directors that could be enforced directly by shareholders, the high court outlined an exception that risked swallowing the rule. Last month, however, the Court of Special Appeals gave a more thorough explanation about when Shenker applies – and, as to be expected, it’s not as broad as disgruntled shareholders might hope.
Continue reading →

Published on: October 13, 2015

Got Your Mind On Your Money? Limits on Appeal Bonds

By William Sinclair

Have you obtained a judgment for recovery of money? Lucky you! Is that judgment unsecured? Ouch.

Well, at least you have some protection should your opponent decide to appeal: Under the Maryland Rules (and unless the parties agree otherwise), the appellant has to file a supersedeas bond covering the whole amount of the judgment that remains unsatisfied, plus interest. Of course, the court can always reduce the bond amount, but it can still be a pretty big deterrent to weak or frivolous appeals that just delay payment and increase the chance that some other creditor will snatch up the debtor’s funds in the meantime. As proposed in the 188th Report of the Maryland Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, however, the bond isn’t without limits.
Continue reading →

Published on: August 17, 2015

COSA Finds No Error in Negligence Jury Instruction

By William Sinclair

Governments and businesses know – or at least they should – that there’s a difference between being vicariously liable and being directly negligent. Jurors may not, however, so how carefully should the distinction be explained come time for crafting jury questions? Perhaps not much – according to a new opinion of the Court of Special Appeals, provided the jury is otherwise instructed properly by the trial court and counsel, blurring the line between vicarious liability and negligence in a jury question can be excusable.
Continue reading →

Published on: May 30, 2015

Won’t Get Fooled Again: Changes to Appellate Font and Spacing Rules

By William Sinclair

We all know the little tricks to stuffing the most content into the allotted number of pages of your appellate brief (currently 50 for the Court of Appeals and 35 for the Court of Special Appeals) – decreasing the line spacing, decreasing the margins, decreasing the kerning, decreasing the height of the text, etc. Well, you’re not fooling anybody: As noted by the Maryland Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure in its 187th Report, “Appellate judges, in Maryland and elsewhere, are regrettably familiar with those tactics and legitimately complain about them.” The Committee has finally had enough, and is urging the Court of Appeals to amend the Maryland Rules to combat the problem.
Continue reading →

Published on: April 22, 2015

Time Is On (Your) Side: A Proposed Change to Maryland Appellate Rule 8-412(c)

By William Sinclair

As the appellant in the Maryland appellate courts, when should you file your brief? Currently, it’s within 40 days after the clerk notifies you that the court has filed the record. Sounds easy enough, except the current Maryland Rules don’t actually require the clerk to send such a notice. In fixing that little problem, however, the Rules Committee is considering working in a smidge more time for practitioners to get their briefs in.
Continue reading →