Mr. Lieberman, a Maryland resident and a licensed engineer, owned Lieberman & Walisko, a consulting engineering firm in Maryland. He contracted to perform services for Mayavision; however, the scope of those services was a matter of dispute. Mr. Lieberman contended that he was hired to provide consulting engineering services and that he only traveled to Louisiana to review the efforts of Mayavision's local telecommunications engineer to get the television station operating and on the air. Mayavision, on the other hand, asserted that Mr. Lieberman was responsible for the design, acquisition, and installation of a new transmitter antenna for the television station. Mayavision contends that the antenna transmitter installation was a complete failure and exposed it to substantial liability to other parties.

In 2008, Mr. Lieberman and Lieberman & Walisko were sued in a Louisiana court by Mayavision. Mr. Lieberman did not respond to the lawsuit. Thereafter, the Louisiana court entered and recorded judgment in favor of Mayavision against Mr. Lieberman and Lieberman & Walisko for $313,552.00 as a result of the breach of contract, negligent performance, and failure to perform. On July 29, 2008, Mayavision filed a motion to enroll foreign judgment in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. That same day, the foreign judgment was recorded in the circuit court.

On August 27, 2008, Mr. Lieberman and Lieberman & Walisko filed a Motion to Vacate Entry of Foreign Judgment and requested that the court refuse to recognize and enforce the judgment, arguing that the Louisiana court lacked personal jurisdiction over them because they did not do business in Louisiana and their physical contacts with Louisiana were nonexistent. On December 19, 2008, Mayavision filed an opposition arguing that the Louisiana court properly exercised specific or special jurisdiction and that Mr. Lieberman purposely availed himself of the benefits of doing business in Louisiana and established minimum contacts with the state. Mayavision appended seven (7) bills issued by Mr. Lieberman and Lieberman & Walisko for consulting services from October 4, 2006 through May 30, 2007. These bills indicated that Mr. Lieberman made regular contact with persons in Louisiana by phone and email, and he traveled to Louisiana at least two (2) times to work on the project.

The circuit court denied the Motion to Vacate the Judgment, finding that Mr. Lieberman and Lieberman & Walisko had minimum contacts with Louisiana. Mr. Lieberman and Lieberman & Walisko timely appealed the circuit court decision, which the Court of Special Appeals upheld.

Maryland's Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act provides the procedure to enforce a foreign judgment. The Act states that a State court is bound by a judgment recorded by a court in another state unless the recording court lacks jurisdiction. The Court of Special Appeals held that the Louisiana court's exercise of personal jurisdiction was proper under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mr. Lieberman communicated with individuals in Louisiana on a regular basis, he traveled to the foreign jurisdiction on two (2) occasions to consult with individuals regarding the installation of the television antenna and transmitter, and the litigation before the court resulted from the failed installation of the television antenna and transmitter. Thus, the minimum contacts test was satisfied.