Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 848 September Term, 1995 _______________________________

OSTEOIMPLANT TECHNOLOGY, INC.

v.

RATHE PRODUCTIONS, INC.

_______________________________ Davis, Hollander, Alpert, Paul E. (retired, specially assigned), JJ. _______________________________ Opinion by Alpert, J. _______________________________ Filed: November 6, 1995

In this appeal we are called upon to decide whether a foreign judgment, when recorded in Maryland, is then subject to post judgment revision proceedings under the Maryland Rules. All parties involved agree that appellant, Osteoimplant

Technology Inc., hired appellee, Rathe Productions Inc., multiple times in the early 1990's to build exhibits for the purpose of demonstrating appellant's wares at trade shows. The parties

further do not dispute that in December 1993 the parties expressly agreed that appellant had an outstanding debt to appellee for the sum of $79,216. Additionally, appellant agreed to pay appellee a

total of $229.15 in storage charges each month, commencing January 1994 and continuing until such time as the entire balance,

consisting of $79,216 plus monthly storage charges, was paid in full. During the early part of 1994, appellee brought suit against appellant after appellant failed to pay off its debt to appellee. Appellee filed its action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Appellant failed to respond to

the summons and complaint in New York, and the federal court subsequently entered a default judgment against appellant for the full amount of $83,878.37. Although appellant contested

jurisdiction in the court below, both parties now acknowledge that the federal court had personal jurisdiction over the appellant in the original claim. Appellee, having been awarded a default judgment in New York, - 1 -

soon after recorded the judgment in both the Circuit Court for Baltimore County and the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Appellee initiated garnishment proceedings

against appellant, and appellant then filed motions in the Maryland federal court to quash the writs of garnishment and to vacate the New York federal court's judgment. Appellant raised, as its key

issue, an alleged failure on the part of appellee to credit appellant for $75,000 worth of payments. It is contended that the

alleged payments in question were issued some time in 1991, a full two years before the parties stipulated that appellant still owed appellee $79,216 plus continuing storage fees. Further, though

appellant had the opportunity to do so, the issue of the 1991 payments was not presented to the New York federal court. In December of 1994, Judge Walter Black, United States

District Court for the District of Maryland, heard oral arguments on the issue and rendered an oral opinion denying appellant's motion to vacate the New York federal court judgment. Appellant's

subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied in February, 1995. Appellant then filed a motion to vacate the New York federal Judge

court judgment in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.

Alfred Brennan denied the motion to vacate, as well as subsequent motions to alter and amend the judgment. Court is: The issue now before this

Can the Circuit Court for Baltimore County vacate,

alter, or amend a judgment rendered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, or may the judgment - 2 -

only be altered by the court which rendered it?

Although there

exists no Maryland case to guide us, the issue has been raised and resolved in many other jurisdictions and can easily be resolved here. We hold, subject to the qualifications noted below, that the

judgment is only subject to reopening in the court which rendered the initial judgment. judgment vacated, Hence, if appellant wishes to have the or amended, those issues must be

altered,

addressed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. DISCUSSION Appellant argues that a foreign judgment, filed in Maryland, becomes a Maryland judgment in every conceivable way. Such a

judgment, according to appellant, can be vacated, altered, or amended if a Maryland court sees fit to do so. Appellant, however,

has not considered issues of res judicata and collateral estoppel. To permit appellant to reopen litigation in Maryland and address issues that were or could have been addressed in the previous forum would effectively subject appellee to trying its case over again. Appellant points to

Download Osteoimplant Technology v. Rathe.pdf

Maryland Law