Barbara Dang v. BWW Law Group

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-03342-RDB,10-14152,10-00215 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999225499]. Mailed to: Barbara Dang. [13-1740]

Appeal: 13-1740

Doc: 16

Filed: 10/24/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1740

In re:

BARBARA KIM DANG,
Debtor,

---------------------------------------------BARBARA KIM DANG,
Debtor - Appellant,
v.
BWW LAW GROUP, f/k/a Bierman, Geesing & Ward, LLC; QUICKEN
LOANS; ONE WEST BANK, f/k/a Indy Mac Bank, FSB; DEUTCHE BANK
NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY; DB INDX 2006-AR27; HOWARD N.
BIERMAN; JACOB GEESING; CARRIE M. WARD; BIERMAN, GEESING &
WARD, LLC; DOES 1-200,
Defendants – Appellees,

ELLEN W. COSBY,
Trustee - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-03342-RDB)

Submitted:

October 22, 2013

Decided:

October 24, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Appeal: 13-1740

Doc: 16

Filed: 10/24/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barbara Kim Dang, Appellant Pro Se.
Matthew Daniel Cohen,
BIERMAN GEESING WARD & WOOD, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland; Joseph
Yenouskas,
Daniel
E.
Zytnick,
GOODWIN
&
PROCTER,
LLP,
Washington, D.C.; Catherine Keller Hopkin, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG,
LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Adam M. Lynn, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE,
Easton, Maryland; James Burton Travis, Crofton, Maryland; Ellen
W. Cosby, Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-1740

Doc: 16

Filed: 10/24/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Barbara

Kim

Dang

appeals

from

the

district

court’s

order dismissing her adversary proceeding that was filed in the
bankruptcy

court.

reversible error.

We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.

Dang v. BWW Law Group, No. 1:12-cv-

03342-RDB

17,

(D.

Md.

Apr.

2013).

We

dispense

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3