Commercial Litigation Representative Cases
Jeremy Schulman of Shulman Rogers secures win for client, Choice Hotels International, in 4th Circuit appeal
Shulman Rogers represented the purchaser of a multi-family apartment building at 3511 13th Street, N.W. in Washington, D.C. in a civil suit brought by the Tenants Association claiming that the tenants had not received the proper notice of their right to purchase the property in connection with the sale to Shulman Rogers’ client. Mort Faller tried the civil litigation in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia before a jury over five (5) days in November, 2005. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found that the tenants had failed to establish that they had not received proper notice and a judgment was entered in favor of Shulman Rogers’ client. The Tenants Association sought to have the sale of the property to Shulman Rogers’ client set aside to allow the tenants to purchase the building and resell it to a different purchaser. As a result of the jury verdict, Shulman Rogers’ client’s purchase of the building was found to be proper under District of Columbia law.
William C. Davis, III, successfully litigates a landmark case establishing a new law in home improvement litigation.
In a case that establishes new law, the Court of Appeals of Maryland ruled in Fosler v. Panoramic Design, Ltd., 376 Md. 118, 829 A.2d 271 (2003), that in determining whether a construction manager was performing a "home improvement" as defined by the statute, the jurisdiction of the Maryland Home Improvement Commission takes priority in adjudicating such disputes. Under the Court’s ruling in Fosler, parties must now exhaust their administrative remedies before the Commission prior to seeking relief in the courts in cases where the issue of whether a home improvement has been performed is in dispute. This is a dramatic shift from the pre-Fosler law, under which the jurisdiction of the Commission was concurrent with that of the courts, and parties were not required to exhaust their administrative remedies before the Commission prior to seeking relief in court.
William C. Davis, III recently obtained summary judgment for Miss Utility in a case involving a natural gas explosion in Wilmington, Delaware. While replacing city sidewalks, a contractor struck and damaged a natural gas service line which resulted in an explosion causing significant personal injuries and property damage. Multiple plaintiffs filed suit against multiple defendants, including the subcontractor performing the excavation, the general contractor, the City of Wilmington's consultant responsible for marking the limits of work, the City of Wilmington, the local power company and Miss Utility. The claims were in the millions. Although all defendants filed motions for summary judgment prior to trial, only Miss Utility's motion for summary judgment was granted. Mr. Davis successfully argued that Miss Utility was not negligent, and that any actions of Miss Utility could not have been the proximate cause of the explosion. On the eve of trial, the case settled for over four million dollars.
James M. Hoffman represents One Call Concepts, Inc. ("OCC"), doing business as "Miss Utility". OCC is the leading provider of one-call and damage prevention related services in fifteen states, the District of Columbia and the Canadian province of Alberta. OCC recently concluded the successful negotiation of a new, multi-year contract for providing statewide one-call services in Minnesota with Gopher State One-Call, Inc., a non-profit organization. OCC and Gopher State have enjoyed a long relationship and anticipate continuing such relationship for years to come.
