120 East Baltimore Street
Suite 1700
Baltimore, Maryland 21202

Andrew D. Levy
Stuart Levine

Online Form: Here
Telephone: 410-962-1030
Facsimile: 410-385-0869
Email: Holzheid@mdinterestrateclass.com

Court Documents

Nov 13. 2015

The following complaint was filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court on behalf of Michael Holzheid against the Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland and the State of Maryland
view the original document

Dec 10. 2015

An amended complaint was filed by Michael Holzheid, Bruce Feinerman, and Jeffrey and Arielle Grill against the defendants.
view the original document

Jan 12. 2016

The following motion to dismiss was filed by the defendants in Baltimore City Circuit Court on January 8, 2016.  The motion seeks to dismiss all of the plaintiffs’ claims on the theory that they should have been brought through the administrative process established for tax disputes.
view the original document

Jan 26. 2016

Andy Levy is widely regarded as one of Maryland’s premiere trial and appellate lawyers, equally comfortable in civil and criminal courtrooms, before jury, judge, or arbitrator. As one of a distinguished group of attorneys who have been listed in Best Lawyers in America for 20 years, Andy has been selected by his peers for inclusion in eight categories: Appellate Practice, Bet-the-Company Litigation, Labor & Employment Litigation, White-Collar Criminal Defense, Commercial Litigation, Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions-Plaintiffs, Civil Rights Law, and Real Estate Litigation. He was named Best Lawyers Lawyer of the Year in 2017 for Appellate Practice, in 2015 for Litigation–Real Estate, and in 2013 for Litigation–Labor & Employment. Only a single lawyer in each practice area in each community is honored as the Lawyer of the Year.

Andy was selected twice by the Maryland Bar Foundation for a Professional Legal Excellence Award – in 2000, for “The Advancement of the Rights of the Disadvantaged,” and in 2012, for “The Advancement of Public Understanding of the Law.”

Andy is a former Chair of the Maryland State Bar Association Criminal Law Section, 2011 winner of The Daily Record‘s Leadership in Law Award, and among Maryland’s Top 10 Super Lawyers. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and is admitted in both Maryland and Washington, DC.

Andy’s practice includes most kinds of criminal and civil litigation. His civil practice focuses on personal injury, product liability, and malpractice, as well as commercial and real estate litigation of all kinds. Andy also has significant experience representing senior executives in employment-related matters, health care providers and other professionals in administrative licensure proceedings, and students and faculty members in academic disciplinary matters. His criminal defense practice is similarly diverse, involving everything from federal death penalty and fraud cases and representation of witnesses and potential defendants during grand jury investigations to state felonies and serious traffic matters such as DWI.

Through the years, Andy has acted as counsel in efforts to establish group homes for persons with disabilities in the face of active community resistance. He was lead counsel in the landmark Potomac Group Home case, which led directly to the elimination of state and local laws requiring neighbor notification and public hearings prior to the opening of such homes. He obtained the first judgment in the country under the design & construction requirements of the Fair Housing Amendments Act in the Baltimore Neighborhoods v. Rommel Builders and LOB, Inc. series of cases.

The diversity of Andy’s law practice is reflected in the variety of courses he has taught as a long-time member of the University of Maryland School of Law’s adjunct faculty, including Torts, Criminal Law, Evidence, Civil Procedure, Trial Practice, and Appellate Advocacy. Andy has been voted Outstanding Adjunct Teacher of the Year three times: the 2007-2008 term (during which he taught Criminal Law), and the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 terms (when he taught Torts). He has also taught Constitutional Law at Stevenson University. Andy is particularly interested in law-related civic education and for a number of years has taught constitutional law and history to school teachers at summer institutes jointly sponsored by the Maryland State Department of Education, Notre Dame of Maryland University, and the California-based Center for Civic Education.  Andy is also a faculty member of the Judicial Institute of Maryland, where he lectures on legal issues to Maryland judges and masters.

Andy served as Chair of the Maryland Commission on Disabilities from 2010-2015. The Commission advises the Maryland Department of Disabilities on changes to improve, reorganize, or streamline services for people with disabilities.


University of Maryland School of Law, J.D. with Honors, 1982.
Indiana University, Bloomington, B.A. with Honors in Political Science, 1978

Feb 01. 2016

Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss.  After Defendants reply, we will await the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion, probably after a hearing.
view the original document

Feb 12. 2016

The Defendants seek to file a reply memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss on or before February 19, 2016.
view the original document

Feb 19. 2016

The following reply was filed by the defendants in Baltimore City Circuit Court on February 19, 2016.  The Court has ruled.  Please see February 16 document.
view the original document

Feb 26. 2016

The defendants filed a Motion for the Court to reconsider its order dated January 16, 2016, denying the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
view original document

Mar 28. 2016

On March 28, 2016, the court denied the Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration.
view original document

Aug 04. 2016

On July 20, 2016, the Defendants responded in opposition to the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.
view original document

Sep 26. 2016

On September 20, 2016, the Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment was filed.
view original document

Oct 20. 2016

On October 20, 2016, Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement and Request for Hearing was filed.
view original document

Nov 08. 2016

Hearing Scheduled on Motion for Summary Judgment
November 23, 2016
Time: 10:00 AM
Room: 330
Place: Circuit Court for Baltimore City – Courthouse East
111 North Calvert Street Baltimore MD, 21202
view original document

Nov 15. 2016

On November 1, 2016, Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment was filed.
view original document

Nov 15. 2016

On November 9, 2016, Defendants’ Reply Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment was served.
view original document

Nov 30. 2016

A hearing on Motions for Class Certification and Summary Judgment will be held on January 30, 2017, 9:30-11:30.  Details to follow.

Dec 06. 2016

Motion Hearing will be held on January 30, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 230 in Courthouse East, 111 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, MD  21202.

Mar 06. 2017

On March 6, 2017 the Court issued the Order to Docket the Redacted Copy of Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement
view original document

Jan 16. 2018

On January 16, 2018, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (Bryant, J.) dismissed Plaintiffs’ lawsuit on procedural grounds.  The Court held that although it agreed with the Plaintiffs that Maryland’s effort to apply a lower interest rate to Wynne claims was discriminatory and thus unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Plaintiffs were required to exhaust their administrative remedies and should have filed their claims in the Maryland Tax Court instead of the Circuit Court.

On another procedural issue, the Court stated that even if the Circuit Court was the appropriate forum, the case did not satisfy the requirements needed for class action treatment.  This would require each of the taxpayers to file a separate lawsuit to collect the money they were owed.  The Court acknowledged that this would be impractical for many, if not most, taxpayers due to the amount of interest involved.

The Plaintiffs intend to appeal.
view original document