Kumar v. Dhanda
17 A.3d 744
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Dr. Kumar, M.D., P.A. sued Dhanda in Montgomery County for breach of contract and breach of non-competition clause arising from an August 31, 2001 Employment Agreement.
- The Agreement required arbitration under the Maryland Uniform Arbitration Act and allowed court action only if unsatisfied with arbitral results.
- A non-compete restricted Dhanda from practicing near Kumar’s offices and targeting Kumar’s patients for three years post-termination.
- The relationship ended August 31, 2002; arbitration proceedings were conducted long after, with an award unfavorable to Kumar (June 20, 2008).
- Kumar filed suit March 16, 2009; Dhanda moved to dismiss as time-barred under a three-year general limitations period (CJP 5-101).
- The circuit court granted the dismissal, and on appeal the court held accrual occurred by August 31, 2002 (breach) and August 31, 2005 (non-compete), with no tolling preserved to suspend accrual.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When do contract claims accrue amid an arbitration clause? | Accrual delayed until arbitration completed (June 20, 2008). | Accrual occurred at breach dates (2002 for contract, 2005 for non-compete). | Accrual occurred by 2002 and 2005; no tolling to suspend accrual. |
| Is judicial tolling applicable to suspend limitations during mandatory non-binding arbitration? | Tolling should apply until arbitration finishes. | No tolling; arbitration does not delay accrual. | No judicial tolling applicable; tolling not recognized under these facts. |
| Does discovery rule or other exceptions affect accrual here? | Discovery rule could delay accrual. | Discovery rule not applicable to contract accrual. | Discovery rule inapplicable to these breach-of-contract claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- James v. Weisheit, 279 Md. 41 (1977) (accrual when all elements could be proven; three-year limit runs after accrual)
- Henry's Drive-In, Inc. v. Pappas, 264 Md. 422 (1972) (accrual when obligation to perform exists, not require demand)
- W. B. & A. Electric RR Co. v. Moss, 130 Md. 198 (1917) (accrual when the wrong occurs; timely filing matters)
- Bertonazzi v. Hillman, 241 Md. 361 (1966) (tolling where proper jurisdiction delayed; policy reasons)
- Walko Corp. v. Burger Chef Systems, Inc., 281 Md. 207 (1977) (tolling not adopted to permit indefinite postponement of limitations)
- Philip Morris v. Christensen, 394 Md. 227 (2006) (recognition of tolling exceptions limited; class-action tolling discussed)
- Turner v. Kight, 406 Md. 167 (2008) (explains judicial tolling limitations and Sitlle policy considerations)
- American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees v. Board of Education, 457 Mich. 74 (1998) (equitable tolling in CBA grievance context; Michigan precedent)