In October 2007, Steiner sent an email to Frieman setting forth the nature of their contemplated relationship. Specifically, the email stated that plaintiff would send "art work, illustrations, and written workboards" to Florida to be used in connection with Defendant's materials. Frieman signed the email and faxed it to defendant. Steiner signed and accepted the document on Defendant's behalf in Florida.

Frieman performed some work for Defendant, for which he was compensated by checks sent from Florida to Maryland. Defendant later decided that Frieman's style of illustrations was not consistent with Defendant's product and informed Frieman that it would not be using any of his work in its books and materials.

Frieman filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland alleging breach of contract, seeking recovery for 25 percent of Defendant's profits for an unspecified period. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that none of its representatives have ever visited Maryland for business reasons, and that Defendant has no offices, employees, or bank accounts in Maryland. In response to Defendant's motion, Frieman argues that Maryland's long arm statute, MD. CODE ANN., CTS. & JUD. PROC. § 6-103(b)(1), permits the Court to "exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who directly or by an agent . . . transacts any business or performs any character of work or service in the State." Frieman argued that Defendant actions – initiation of contact, entering into an agreement, sending emails to Maryland, and making numerous telephone calls – were sufficient to constitute transacting business in Maryland.

According to the Court, Frieman's "argument has no merit whatsoever." There was no contact between the Defendant and Maryland – the initial contact between the parties was made in Florida, not Maryland, and the email (contract) was executed by Defendant in Florida. The Court further stated that there is no authority to support Frieman's proposition that merely sending emails to someone in Maryland or placing telephone calls to him in Maryland from out of state meets the transaction of business test. Maryland courts have expressly stated that a person's performance of professional services in Maryland, does support the assertion of personal jurisdiction over the corporation. Zavian v. Foudy, 130 Md. App. 689, 700 (2000). As such, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, stating that the Maryland courts are not permitted to subject an out-of-state defendant to jurisdiction in Maryland solely because of the unilateral activities of a Maryland independent contractor.