Semtek gets another shot at Lockheed Martin in court

The Court of Special Appeals yesterday breathed a bit of life back into a long-running lawsuit brought by a Massachusetts start- up against Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin Corp. Semtek International Inc., which has been to the Supreme Court and back since first filing the suit in 1997, should have been allowed to amend its complaint to include civil conspiracy and consumer protection claims 89 days before trial in 2003, the appeals court said.Semtek claims that Lockheed predecessor Martin-Marietta and another company, Transworld Communications Inc., tortiously interfered with Semtek's relationship with a Russian company, Mercury (or Merkuriy) Ltd., which handled that country's military satellites. Lockheed, Transworld, and Semtek all hoped to profit commercially from Russian military and communications satellites following the opening of Russian markets in the early 1990s.Semtek's claim for intentional interference with a contract was thrown out by Baltimore City Circuit Judge Albert J. Matricciani Jr. prior to trial, on the grounds that communications between Semtek and Mercury lacked the necessary definitiveness to be a binding contract. The remaining claim, for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, was eliminated following Semtek's presentation of evidence at trial, when Matricciani ruled there was insufficient evidence to put the question to the jury.Although the Court of Special Appeals upheld Matricciani's conclusions on those points, it remanded the case for the lower court to consider the civil conspiracy and consumer protection claims Semtek set forth in the amended complaint.While it declined to evaluate the merits of the new claims, the appellate court sounded a note of skepticism.[W]e note that Semtek itself assured the circuit court that the new civil conspiracy and consumer protection claims would 'stand or fall with the ruling by the Court on the summary judgment motion directed to the interference claims,' Judge Timothy E. Meredith wrote yesterday in the 50-page unreported opinion. We leave it to the circuit court to determine whether Semtek's prediction was correct. Limitations issueFurther, if Semtek chooses to pursue the two additional claims upon remand, Lockheed may be able to successfully raise a statute of limitations defense - since a dispute still exists as to when Semtek knew of Lockheed's involvement in the case.Semtek filed suit in California in February 1997. The case was removed to federal district court, which dismissed the matter as barred by a two-year statute of limitations. Semtek filed suit in Maryland in July 1997. The Maryland case was dismissed on res judicata grounds - a decision that was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in February 2001.On remand to the Baltimore City Circuit Court, Matricciani threw out the two tort claims and also granted Lockheed's motion to strike Semtek's amended complaint. The Court of Special Appeals noted that Massachusetts law governed the substantive issues of the case but that Maryland law controlled the procedural ones.The appellate court declined to resolve the issue concerning when Maryland's three-year statute of limitations began to run in the case but noted that Semtek was not helped by a savings clause of Maryland Rule 2-101(b) - since it failed to file suit in Maryland within 30 days of the entry of the order of dismissal by the federal district court in California.Whether this is fatal to the new claims Semtek sought to add in its amended complaint will be a question for the parties to resolve on remand if Semtek elects to continue this litigation, Meredith wrote.While the court disagreed with the lower court judge's reasoning on the economic advantage count - noting that the existence of a joint venture between Semtek and Mercury was a disputed issue of fact - it nevertheless affirmed the decision to grant judgment to Lockheed on that count. [T]here was no evidence (1) that Lockheed had knowledge of any business relationship that Semtek allegedly had with Mercury until July 6, 1994; and (2) that any action taken by Lockheed after July 6, 1994 was tortious, Meredith wrote. Counsel for the parties did not return calls for comment by press time. Thomas Girardi, of California, was lead counsel for Semtek; Bryan Lysaght and Robert Willett, also of California, represented Lockheed along with Francis B. Burch Jr., Brett Ingerman and Anthony Meager of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US in Baltimore.

Copyright 2005 Dolan Media Newswires
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.