subject: Breach Contracts Baltimore Maryland Civil Lawsuit Business Litigation Commercial [print this page] Breach Contracts Baltimore Maryland Civil Lawsuit Business Litigation Commercial
Hariri v. Dahne, 412 Md. 674 (Md. 2010)
Issue:
Whether a denial of Appellants' motions to dismiss would constitute an abuse of discretion?
The court held that the Circuit Court's decision to dismiss Appellees' action did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
The 120-day period [within which the plaintiff must serve the defendant] is measured from the first issuance of original process directed to that defendant, not from the last issuance of process. The complaint filed by Appellees on October 14, 2003, and which was never served, became "subject to dismissal" at the end of the day on February 11, 2004. The complaint filed by Appellees on February 7, 2005, became "subject to dismissal" at the end of the day on June 7, 2005. In light of the defendants' addresses provided in those complaints, it is clear that the decision at issue was not "beyond the fringe of what [the Circuit Court] deems minimally acceptable." The record also shows, however, that (1) no notification of contemplated dismissal was issued until September 14, 2007, eight days after Dr. Hariri and Dr. Blaik had been served, (2) no dismissal order had been entered by November 13, 2007, when Appellees filed their Amended Complaint, and (3) no dismissal order had been entered by November 15, 2007, when Dr. Hatfield filed his motion to dismiss.
Under these circumstances, in light of the fact that Appellees had until the end of the day on the twelfth anniversary of the alleged breach to file suit against Appellants, a denial of Appellants' motions to dismiss would not have constituted an abuse of discretion.
The court of appeals held declining to dismiss the complaint for breach of contract with prejudice was appealable because it put the doctors "out of court" as to a dismissal with prejudice. The notion embraced by the defendants and the Maryland Court of Special Appeals in this case, that an order terminating the case in the circuit court is not final and appealable unless it settles the rights of the parties or concludes the cause of action, has consistently and expressly been rejected by this Court.
