Shailendra Kumar, P.A. v. Dhanda
426 Md. 185
Md.2012Background
- Dr. Kumar, P.A. sued Dr. Dhanda for breach of contract and breach of a non-compete in Montgomery County after the 2002 termination of their August 28, 2001 employment agreement.
- The contract required mandatory non-binding arbitration for disputes, with a provision allowing court access if not satisfied by the arbitration outcome.
- Dr. Dhanda moved to dismiss as time-barred by a three-year statute of limitations; petitioner argued accrual was tolled until arbitration was completed.
- Circuit Court dismissed the complaint as time-barred; Court of Special Appeals affirmed; and this Court granted certiorari to resolve accrual and tolling questions.
- Accrual likely occurred no later than the contract termination in 2002 and the non-compete expiry in 2005, making the 2009 filing untimely under §5-101.
- Non-binding arbitration was considered a condition precedent to litigation but did not toll the limitations period or affect accrual.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does non-binding arbitration affect accrual timing? | Kumar contends accrual tolled until arbitration completion in 2008. | Dhanda argues accrual occurred by 2002-2005 when breaches occurred, so the suit was time-barred. | Accrual occurs at breach; arbitration does not toll the period. |
| May arbitration toll the limitations period under MD law? | Arbitration tolling is permissible under contract and public policy to preserve remedies. | No tolling exception applies; legislative scheme does not toll for non-binding arbitration. | No tolling available; arbitration tolling not recognized. |
Key Cases Cited
- James v. Weisheit, 279 Md. 41 (Md. 1977) (accrual timing depends on when elements are proven)
- Henry's Drive-In, Inc. v. Pappas, 264 Md. 422 (Md. 1972) (accrual from breach or action feasible)
- Walko Corp. v. Burger Chef Systems, Inc., 281 Md. 207 (Md. 1977) (tolling not favored; diligence required)
- Philip Morris v. Christensen, 394 Md. 227 (Md. 2006) (adopts tolling exception criteria)
- Swam v. Upper Chesapeake Med. Ctr., Inc., 397 Md. 528 (Md. 2007) (misdirected forum tolls timely filing)
- Bertonazzi v. Hillman, 241 Md. 361 (Md. 1966) (judicial tolling for timely forum when in wrong venue)
- Arroyo v. Bd. of Educ. of Howard Cnty., 381 Md. 646 (Md. 2004) (administrative remedies can limit litigation timing)