Schnader Harrison Segal v. Loren W. Hershey
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [999221927-2] in 13-1512, denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [999222079-2] in 13-2147. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00928-AJT-IDD. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999379974].. [13-1512, 13-2147]
Appeal: 13-1512
Doc: 48
Filed: 06/20/2014
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1512
SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
and
ACADIA INVESTMENTS L.C.,
Party-in-Interest,
v.
LOREN W. HERSHEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-2147
SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
and
ACADIA INVESTMENTS L.C.,
Party-in-Interest,
v.
LOREN W. HERSHEY,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal: 13-1512
Doc: 48
Filed: 06/20/2014
Pg: 2 of 5
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-00928-AJT-IDD)
Submitted:
June 2, 2014
Decided:
June 20, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Loren W. Hershey, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Michael Stern,
SCHNADER, HARRISON, SEGAL & LEWIS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 13-1512
Doc: 48
Filed: 06/20/2014
Pg: 3 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Schnader,
Harrison,
Segal,
&
Lewis,
LLP
filed
a
complaint against Loren W. Hershey, a former client of the law
firm, for breach of contract for failure to pay legal fees for
services rendered to Hershey.
claims
for
(1)
breach
of
Hershey counterclaimed, alleging
fiduciary
duty;
(2)
fraudulent
inducement to enter into the contract; (3) tortious interference
with contract; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress;
(5) conspiracy to injure business interests and trade secrets;
and
(6)
attempted
conspiracy.
The
district
court
entered
summary judgment in favor of Schnader on its claim for breach of
contract
and
on
all
of
Hershey’s
counterclaims.
The
court
subsequently denied Hershey’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) motion,
and
granted
Schnader’s
motions
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
On
orders
We
appeal,
granting
review
judgment.
de
Hershey
summary
novo
a
for
against
Hershey
Hershey now appeals.
challenges
judgment
district
sanctions
and
court’s
the
denying
order
district
court’s
reconsideration.
granting
summary
Providence Square Assocs., L.L.C. v. G.D.F., Inc.,
211 F.3d 846, 850 (4th Cir. 2000).
Summary judgment should be
granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as
to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
“[T]here is no
issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the
3
Appeal: 13-1512
Doc: 48
Filed: 06/20/2014
Pg: 4 of 5
nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.
If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly
probative, summary judgment” is proper.
Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986) (citations omitted).
In
addition,
we
review
a
district
court’s
denying a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion.
order
See United
States v. Holland, 214 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2000).
Under
Rule 60(b)(2), a district court may relieve a party from a final
judgment due to newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a
new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b).
We
have
thoroughly
reviewed
the
record
and
the
relevant legal authorities and conclude that the district court
did
not
err
in
granting
summary
judgment
for
Schnader
and
denying Hershey’s motion for reconsideration.
On
appeal,
Hershey
also
challenges
the
district
court’s order granting Schnader’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions.
“We
review
the
decision
discretion.”
Newport
Vision,
650
Inc.,
omitted).
F.3d
to
News
423,
award
Holdings
443
sanctions
Corp.
(4th
Cir.
for
v.
abuse
Virtual
2011)
of
City
(citation
However, Hershey has failed in his appellate brief to
develop an argument challenging the court’s order.
We therefore
conclude that Hershey has forfeited appellate review of that
order.
See Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 653 n.7
4
Appeal: 13-1512
Doc: 48
Filed: 06/20/2014
Pg: 5 of 5
(4th Cir. 2006) (finding conclusory single sentence in brief
“insufficient to raise on appeal any merits-based challenge to
the district court’s ruling”).
Accordingly,
we
affirm
the
district
court’s
orders.
We also deny Hershey’s motion to place the appeal in abeyance.
We
dispense
contentions
with
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5
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?