![sample response to motion to dismiss virginia sample response to motion to dismiss virginia](https://www.pdffiller.com/preview/481/372/481372425/large.png)
Interestingly, the Stevens Defendant do not cite this rule in their motion. In furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, the court, on motion or on its own initiative, may order a separate trial of any claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or of any separate issue, or of any number of claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party claims, or This Maryland Rule affords the Court the means to structure the determination of disputed issues, so as to ensure the more efficient administration of judicial resources and to avoid untoward prejudice to any party or parties. Maryland Rule 2-503(b) states: Separate Trials. Defendant has made no showing of prejudice or inconvenience outside the Aprejudice and of answering the claims of failing to file a claim within the statute of limitations. In fact, Plaintiff would suffer both inconvenience and prejudice if these cases were severed. In Maryland the movant must prove, as stated by Rule 2-503, that severance of Plaintiffs claims would be in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice.
![sample response to motion to dismiss virginia sample response to motion to dismiss virginia](https://www.docdroid.net/thumbnail/E0y9rOT/1500,1500/fernatt-roy-response-to-motions-to-dismiss-pdf.jpg)
Indeed severing Plaintiff’s claim against multiple defendants is disfavored under Maryland law. Plaintiff complains of injuries suffered by multiple parties. Yet they cite not a single case severing any Maryland case under any circumstance, much less facts analogous to the instant case. The Stevens Defendants position is that the case must be severed because there are different legal issues for the jury to resolve. With respect to the legal malpractice claim, there is not expected to be a dispute that the statute of limitations was missed instead, the legal malpractice defendants are expected to assume the role of the truck driver. Plaintiff’s claim is essentially twofold: (1) Plaintiff’s claim against the truck driver and related entities, which is essentially a legal negligence claim against three individual lawyers and two law firms premised on their failure to file a meritorious negligence claim within the statute of limitations period against the truck driver and other related entities and (2) a claim against the steel truss manufacturer and fabricator, Brookfield. This action stems from personal injuries sustained in Virginia by Plaintiff Marty Johnson on August 13, 2012, when a steel truss fell from a truck bed and landed on Plaintiff. Stevens Motion to Sever and Stay Legal Malpractice Claims Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants Stevens & Jackson, LLC and Larry J. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND