SENS, Inc. v. Whiteford Taylor and Preston, LLP
This text of SENS, Inc. v. Whiteford Taylor and Preston, LLP (SENS, Inc. v. Whiteford Taylor and Preston, LLP) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
SENS, Inc. v. Whiteford Taylor and Preston, LLP, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sens-inc-v-whiteford-taylor-and-preston-llp-ca4-2023.