Laszlo N. Tauber, General Partner, D/b/a Flat Fork Partners,a Maryland Limited Partnership, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Morton M. Meyer, Esquire; Jay Fox, Esquire, Defendants-appellees,andherbert S. Cannon; Wilson J. Brent, Jr.; Herbert S. Cannon& Company, Ltd., a New York Corporation; Hemco Coalmanagement Corporation, a West Virginia Corporation;hemisphere Coal Company, Inc., a New York Corporation; Coaltechnology Consultants, Inc., a West Virginia Corporation;brent Coal Company, Inc., a West Virginia Corporation;david A. Bury; Andrew J. Leckie; Martin L. Goldstein,c.p.a.; Martin A. Halpern, C.p.a., Defendants.laszlo N. Tauber, General Partner, D/b/a Flat Fork Partners,a Maryland Limited Partnership, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Martin L. Goldstein, C.p.a.; Martin A. Halpern, C.p.a.andmorton M. Meyer, Esquire; Jay Fox, Esquire; Herbert S.cannon; Wilson J. Brent, Jr.; Herbert S. Cannon & Company,ltd., a New York Corporation; Hemco Coal Managementcorporation, a West Virginia Corporation; Hemisphere Coalcompany, Inc., a New York Corporation; Coal Technologyconsultants, Inc., a West Virginia Corporation; Brent Coalcompany, Inc., a West Virginia Corporation; David a Bury;andrew J. Leckie, Defendants, 869 F.2d 594 (4th Cir. 1989)

Laszlo N. Tauber, M.D., appeals the district court's denial of his motion to reconsider and vacate the court's previous orders dismissing attorneys Morton M. Meyer and Jay Fox, and accountants Martin L. Goldstein and Martin A. Halpern, for lack of personal jurisdiction. Tauber, a Maryland resident, filed this diversity action for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and conversion against appellees, all New York residents, along with eight other defendants, over an illfated investment in West Virginia coal properties. After separate evidentiary hearings, the trial court dismissed first the accountants, then the attorneys, because of insufficient contacts with Maryland, the forum state. After trial on the merits, Tauber moved to vacate the dismissal orders on the grounds that testimony given in the trial, as well as testimony given in a related criminal trial, established that the appellees did have sufficient contacts with the Commonwealth of Maryland to establish personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the proffered testimony did not establish the requisite contacts.

After consideration of the record, the briefs, and oral argument, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons expressed by the district court in its two orders issued May 9, 1988. Laszlo N. Tauber, etc. v. Herbert S. Cannon, etc., Civ.Act. No. B-82-459.

AFFIRMED.