Field Auto City, Inc. v. General

Filing 920071115

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1388 FIELD AUTO CITY, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, GENERAL MOTORS Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-01174-TSE) Submitted: November 2, 2007 Decided: November 15, 2007 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael P. Fortkort, MICHAEL P. FORTKORT PC, Oak Hill, Virginia, for Appellant. David G. Barger, Kathleen J. Holmes, WILLIAMS MULLEN, McLean, Virginia; Monroe Kelly III, Joseph R. Mayes, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Sheila L. Shadmand, JONES DAY, Washington, D.C.; Jeffrey J. Jones, T. Todd Kennard, JONES DAY, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Field Auto City, Inc. appeals the district court's orders granting Defendants' motion to dismiss its claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000), and the Automobile Dealer's Day in Court Act, 15 U.S.C. 1221-1225 (2000), and denying its motion to amend the complaint. reversible error. We have reviewed the record and find no Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the Field Auto City, Inc. v. reasons stated by the district court. Gen. Motors Corp., No. 1:06-cv-01174-TSE (E.D. Va. Feb. 23, 2007; Mar. 22, 2007). reply brief. We deny Defendants' motion to strike Field Auto's 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 - 2 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?