
    COLT’S PLASTICS COMPANY, INCORPORATED, PlaintiffAppellee, v. VENTECH, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-2045.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 30, 2001.
    Decided April 24, 2001.
    Michael D. Faidin, Baltimore, MD, for appellant. Gina M. Harasti, Jiranek & Harasti, L.L.C., Baltimore, MD; George J. Kelly, Jr., Siegel, O’Connor, Schiff & Zangan, P.C., New Haven, CT, for appellee.
    Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

VenTech, Inc. (VenTech) appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Colt’s Plastics Co., Inc. (Colt’s Plastics) in this action seeking to impose liability for a judgment against Venture Media Limited Partnership (Venture Media) on VenTech, Venture Media’s general partner. We affirm.

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(a),(b), the motion for summary judgment was properly served by mail. VenTech, as Venture Media’s general partner, was liable for the judgment in question, even though VenTech was not a party to the contract with Colt’s Plastics that Venture Media breached. Md.Code Ann., Corps & Assn’s § 9-307 (1999); Bennett Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. NationsBank of Md., 103 Md.App. 749, 654 A.2d 949, 959 (1995), rev’d on other grounds, 342 Md. 169, 674 A.2d 534 (1996). Finally, Venture Media affirmatively concealed that VenTech was its general partner. Therefore, the limitations period as to VenTech did not begin to run until 1999, when Colt’s Plastics, while investigating Venture Media’s assets, discovered VenTech and its relationship to Venture Media. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Colt’s Plastics Co. v. VenTech, Inc., No. CA-99-3727-JFM (D.Md. Jul. 28, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  