Maryan Alexander

Isaac Netzer (Associate-New York, NY) and Maryan Alexander (Partner-Baltimore, MD) represented an American multinational automotive and clean energy company in a dispute that stemmed from a 2015 solar panel installation at the plaintiff’s property, with allegations surfacing in 2023 regarding roof compromise and electrical system malfunctions. The plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, violation of New York General Business Law §349, fraud in the inducement, and negligence. Isaac served as the lead on the motion to dismiss, guiding the defense strategy and briefing that resulted in a comprehensive dismissal of the $5 million complaint. The Suffolk County Supreme Court granted our motion to dismiss all claims brought by the plaintiff. The court found that the breach of contract claim was insufficiently pleaded, as it failed to identify the specific contractual provisions allegedly breached. The General Business Law §349 claim was dismissed because it arose from a private contractual dispute rather than conduct impacting consumers at large. The fraud in the inducement claim was dismissed for lack of particularity, as it did not detail specific misrepresentations or when they were made. The negligence claim was found to be duplicative of the contract claim and did not allege a distinct injury.

Maryan Alexander (Partner-Baltimore, MD) and Michael Silvestri (Of Counsel-Baltimore, MD) obtained summary judgment in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on behalf of a title insurance producer sued for allegedly failing to notify the plaintiffs/buyers of an open Building Code violation prior to closing in a real estate transaction. More than a year after the plaintiffs/buyers purchased the property, Baltimore City filed a receivership action, resulting in plaintiffs/buyers incurring significant expense in repairs to abate the Building Code violation. The plaintiffs/buyers sued the title insurance producer on counts for breach of contract, negligence, violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act and fraud. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the title insurance producer on the basis that it had no duty, in contract or in tort, to search for or disclose the Building Code violations, which are not a cloud on title. The court also dismissed the violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act claim, agreeing that the Act expressly excludes title insurance producers from the statutory scheme, and the fraud claim for not being pled with the requisite specificity. The action is continuing as to other defendants.

Maryan Alexander (Partner-Baltimore, MD) prevailed on a summary judgment motion in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against plaintiffs who alleged housing and employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, the Fair Housing Act and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act against our client property management company. The client provided housing to certain employees, including the plaintiffs, who are of Filipino descent. The lawsuit was initiated in 2018 when plaintiffs complained that the housing they were provided was inferior to that of their younger, American counterparts. The case has a long procedural history, having gone up on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals after a dispute arose over the plaintiffs trying to revoke a settlement agreement. After the case was remanded to the District of Columbia, Maryan successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to make a prima facie case. The court agreed and dismissed the claims.