Gunty et al. v. Clancy et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, denied their motion to disqualify defense counsel as moot, and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court held that the alleged internet activity was not sufficiently directed at Maryland to satisfy Maryland’s long-arm statute and constitutional due process requirements. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery.

Holdings

1. A waivable conflict possessed by the lawyer who filed the notice of removal did not constitute a defect in the statutory removal procedure requiring remand, where Plaintiffs identified no failure to comply with the removal requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
2. The court lacked specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Plaintiffs did not establish a sufficient basis under Maryland's long-arm statute and, independently, Defendants' internet activity did not demonstrate a manifest intent to target Maryland or Maryland residents as required by due process.
3. Jurisdictional discovery was not warranted because Plaintiffs offered only speculation and conclusory assertions regarding Defendants' Maryland contacts.
4. The motion to disqualify defense counsel was moot because the challenged law firm voluntarily withdrew from representing Defendants.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an alleged waivable conflict of defense counsel rendered the removal procedurally defective and required remand.
2. Whether Defendants were subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Maryland under Maryland's long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause.
3. Whether the court should permit jurisdictional discovery before ruling on the Rule 12(b)(2) motion.
4. Whether Plaintiffs' motion to disqualify counsel remained justiciable after the challenged counsel withdrew.

Disposition

dismissed