Montage Furniture Services v. Regency Furniture, Inc

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:11-cv-00453-AW. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999015223].. [12-1715]

Appeal: 12-1715

Doc: 31

Filed: 01/04/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1715

MONTAGE FURNITURE SERVICES, LLC,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
REGENCY
FURNITURE,
INCORPORATED;
SAMMY
FURNITURE,
INCORPORATED; SAMMY FURNITURE OF CATONSVILLE, INCORPORATED;
SAMMY FURNITURE OF EASTON, INCORPORATED; SAMMY FURNITURE OF
FREDERICK, INCORPORATED; SAMMY FURNITURE OF GOLDEN RING,
INCORPORATED; SAMMY FURNITURE OF HAGERSTOWN, INCORPORATED;
SAMMY FURNITURE OF LAUREL, INCORPORATED; SAMMY FURNITURE OF
PASADENA, INCORPORATED; SAMMY HOME STORE OF FREDERICK,
INCORPORATED; SAMMY HOME STORE OF HAGERSTOWN, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:11-cv-00453-AW)

Submitted:

December 19, 2012

Decided:

January 4, 2013

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derek P. Roussillon, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, PC, Baltimore,
Maryland; Brian J. Masternak, David S. Ludington, WARNER,
NORCROSS & JUDD, LLP, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellant.
Jonathan A. Azrael, AZRAEL, FRANZ, SCHWAB & LIPOWITZ, LLC,

Appeal: 12-1715

Doc: 31

Filed: 01/04/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-1715

Doc: 31

Filed: 01/04/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Montage

Furniture

Services,

LLC

(“Montage”)

appeals

the district court’s order granting the Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment.

On appeal, Montage argues that the district

court erred in granting summary judgment on its claim for unjust
enrichment.

We affirm.

We review whether a district court erred in granting
summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards as
the district court.
Cir. 2012).

Martin v. Lloyd, 700 F.3d 132, 135 (4th

Summary judgment is only appropriate where there is

no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to
Id.

judgment as a matter of law.

“On a motion for summary

judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party only if there is a genuine dispute as to
Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 586 (2009)

those facts.”

(internal quotation marks omitted).

“Where the record taken as

a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the
nonmoving
trial.”

party,

there

is

no

genuine

issue

for

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475

U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We
district
Montage’s

have

court

reviewed

did

unjust

not

err

enrichment

the
in

record

and

granting

claim.

We

conclude

summary
dispense

that

the

judgment
with

on

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3

Appeal: 12-1715

Doc: 31

Filed: 01/04/2013

Pg: 4 of 4

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4