Opinion ID: 2070918
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Alison v. Toscani, Goodman & Close, et al.

Text: The last complaint against Respondent arises out of a six-count complaint filed on January 18, 1988 by Respondent against the law firm of Toscani, Goodman & Close (the firm), John A. Goodman and James A. Close, individually, and Frank and Patricia Stacey. Respondent asserted that the firm and Mr. Close were liable for malpractice, breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, and slander, claiming $80,000 in compensatory damages and $150,000 in punitive damages. Respondent also claimed that the Staceys were liable for breach of contract and in quantum meruit, alleging $6,000 in compensatory damages. Respondent, however, dismissed his complaint against the Staceys in October 1989. According to the complaint, the Staceys retained Respondent to represent them regarding an automobile accident which occurred in 1985. Respondent claimed that he and Mr. Close shared office space but were not partners, that he hired Mr. Close to assist him with the Staceys' representation, and that Mr. Close failed to represent them properly. As a result, Respondent lost them as clients. Prior to trial, Respondent filed an amended complaint against the law firm and Mr. Goodman and Mr. Close individually, eliminating the slander count against the firm and replacing it with a breach of fiduciary duty claim. Contrary to what he had asserted in the initial complaint, Respondent claimed that he and Mr. Close were partners with regard to the representation of the Staceys. The defendants moved for summary judgment and to strike the amended complaint, and both were granted by the circuit court. The defendants later moved for sanctions against Respondent pursuant to Md. Rule 1-341. Before the motion for sanctions was ruled upon, Respondent filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Special Appeals which reversed and remanded the case to the circuit court. On remand, the defendants filed a motion to compel discovery which was granted. Respondent did not comply with the order compelling discovery, and the defendants then filed a motion pursuant to Md. Rule 2-433 requesting that Respondent's case be dismissed. The circuit court dismissed Respondent's amended complaint, but directed the clerk of the court not to file the order until the defendants' previous motion for sanctions could be ruled upon. Respondent filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, but later failed to appear at the hearing held on that motion. The circuit court denied Respondent's motion. At the conclusion of a hearing held on the defendants' motion for sanctions, the circuit court delivered an oral opinion granting the motion. Judge Brennan quoted the following from the circuit court's opinion: `This is a bad faith case. What I have to do is look to see why you did all of this. What was the reason you sued Close? Why?.... It was a get even.... This is a vexatious case. You are out to get Jimmy Close. You wanted to harass him.... What you would like is to beat on him. You take pleasure in picking on him.... The whole case is without substantial justification .... In this case in my judgment this whole case was born of your anger at Mr. Close and that you were going to get him. It is vexatious .... you have enjoyed yourself the last couple of days. I have looked out and watched you and you take great pleasure in trying to make Mr. Close squirm. No doubt about that. None in my mind. None....it was not the money that you were after. It is his blood. That is what you want. Not the money. You want blood.