Court Opinion

ID: 9896410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-10 21:00:40.286017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:52.464185
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1838     Doc: 39         Filed: 11/09/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                           UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1838

        SENS, INC.; ROY SENS; MELANIE SUSAN SENS; SENS MECHANICAL,
        INC,

                            Plaintiffs – Appellees,

                     v.

        WHITEFORD TAYLOR AND PRESTON, LLP; THOMAS CARROLL BEACH,
        III,

                            Defendants – Appellants,

        and

        MONIQUE D. ALMY,

                            Trustee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (1:21-cv-02520-LKG; 1:21-cv-02988-LKG)

        Submitted: April 25, 2023                                  Decided: November 9, 2023

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1838      Doc: 39         Filed: 11/09/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        ON BRIEF: Kevin G. Hroblak, WHITEFORD TAYLOR & PRESTON LLP, Baltimore,
        Maryland; Alvin I. Frederick, ECCLESTON & WOLF, P.C., Hanover, Maryland, for
        Appellants. Patrick Donald Gardiner, Wes Patrick Henderson, HENDERSON LAW, LLC,
        Crofton, Maryland; Christopher G. Hoge, CROWLEY, HODE & FEIN, PC, Washington,
        D.C., for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1838         Doc: 39      Filed: 11/09/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Plaintiffs filed a legal malpractice suit in Maryland against Defendants White

        Taylor & Preston, LLP, and Thomas Carroll Beach, III, for providing advice that allegedly

        resulted in an adverse legal ruling holding Plaintiffs liable for up to $17.5 million in

        damages. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ suit as time-barred under Maryland’s

        general three-year statute of limitations.    The bankruptcy court denied the motion,

        concluding that Plaintiffs’ complaints were timely filed because the limitations period

        commenced when Plaintiffs received the adverse ruling. The bankruptcy court’s order

        resolved all pending issues and concluded the adversary proceeding. On appeal, the district

        court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision.

               “We review the judgment of a district court sitting in review of a bankruptcy court

        de novo, applying the same standards of review that were applied in the district court.” In

        re Merry-Go-Round Enters., Inc., 400 F.3d 219, 224 (4th Cir. 2005). “Specifically, we

        review the bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error, while we review questions

        of law de novo.” Id. Having reviewed the record, we see no reversible error and thus

        affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

        adequately presented in the materials before this Court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                      AFFIRMED

                                                     3