Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2833 September Term, 2009

JAMAL LOGAN

v.

LSP MARKETING CORPORATION, ET AL.

Meredith, Wright, Moylan, Charles E. Jr. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Wright, J. Filed: December 29, 2010

This appeal arises from a discovery issue in a lead paint poisoning case. On March 22, 2004, appellant, Jamal Logan, filed suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against 22 defendants, including appellees, LSP Marketing Corporation and Basilio Lachica (collectively, "LSP"). On March 10, 2005, LSP filed a motion for sanctions, seeking dismissal of the action with prejudice or, in the alternative, exclusion of all but one of Logan's experts from testifying at trial. On March 29, 2005, Logan filed an opposition to the motion for sanctions, along with a request for a hearing. On April 29, 2005, without holding a hearing, the court denied LSP's request for dismissal but granted the motion for sanctions by excluding all but one of Logan's experts ("2005 Order"). On May 11, 2005, Logan filed a motion to revise the court's 2005 Order. On February 8, 2006, without holding a hearing, the court denied Logan's motion, stating that "no judgment has been entered." By letter dated March 20, 2006, Logan's counsel asked the court to revise its 2005 Order. The court responded on March 27, 2006, stating that it "will take no action in response to the letter as [Logan's counsel] submitted his concerns in the form of a letter rather than a proper motion." The case proceeded to trial on March 29, 2006. As a preliminary matter, Logan moved for reconsideration of the court's 2005 Order. After hearing from counsel, the court denied Logan's motion. Thereafter, Logan's counsel stipulated that Logan "could not proceed to trial and was unable to establish a prima facie case under the parameters existing as a result of the [court's 2005 Order]." Logan requested a postponement of trial, which the court denied. One of the defendants then moved for summary judgment. Finding "no dispute as to material fact," the court granted summary judgment "as to all

claims asserted against all Defendants by [] Jamal Logan." This appeal followed. Questions Presented Logan presents the four questions, which we have revised for clarity:1 1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it ruled on LSP's motion for sanctions without a hearing? Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it excluded all but one of Logan's experts? Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it denied, without a hearing, Logan's motion to revise the 2005 Order? Did the trial court err or abuse its discretion when it denied Logan's motion to reconsider the 2005 Order and proceeded to grant summary judgment in favor of LSP?

2)

3)

4)

Finding no error or abuse of discretion, we affirm the circuit court's judgment. Facts

1

In his brief, Logan presented the following issues: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ruling on LSP's dispositive Motion for Sanctions without a hearing. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ruling that Appellant's expert designations were inadequate and duplicative, and then striking these experts from testifying at trial. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied

Download Logan v. LSP.pdf

Maryland Law