Lyon Shipyard, Inc. v. Dann Marine Towing, L.C.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:11-cv-00650-AWA-LRL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999366753]. [13-2048]

Appeal: 13-2048

Doc: 24

Filed: 06/02/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2048

LYON SHIPYARD, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DANN MARINE TOWING, L.C.,
Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District
Judge. (2:11-cv-00650-AWA-LRL)

Submitted:

May 23, 2014

Decided:

June 2, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael J. Gardner, Megan E. Burns, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP,
Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant.
David N. Ventker,
Marissa M. Henderson, VENTKER & WARMAN, PLLC, Norfolk, Virginia;
Robert Birthisel, HAMILTON, MILLER & BIRTHISEL, LLP, Tampa,
Florida, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-2048

Doc: 24

Filed: 06/02/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Lyon Shipyard, Inc. (“Lyon”), appeals the district court’s
judgment in favor of Dann Marine Towing, L.C. (“Dann Marine”),
following a one-day bench trial on contract and warranty claims
arising from a dispute over Lyon’s performance of a maritime
painting contract. Lyon urges us to reverse the judgment below,
challenging the district court’s factual findings; arguing that
the court erroneously determined that Lyon breached its contract
with Dann Marine and its warranty of workmanlike performance;
and further challenging the court’s calculation of damages.
In a bench trial, we review the district court’s
factual findings for clear error and its legal
conclusions de novo. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52; Helton v. AT &
T, Inc., 709 F.3d 343, 351 (4th Cir. 2013). “In cases
in which a district court’s factual findings turn on
assessments of witness credibility or the weighing of
conflicting evidence during a bench trial, such
findings are entitled to even greater deference.”
Helton, 709 F.3d at 351.
FTC v. Ross, 743 F.3d 886, 894 (4th Cir. 2014).
We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
set forth in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned
orders. Lyon Shipyard, Inc. v. Dann Marine Towing, L.C., No.
2:11-cv-00650-AWA-LRL (E.D. Va. Aug. 2, 2013); Lyon Shipyard,
Inc.

v.

Dann

Marine

Towing,

L.C.,

No.

2:11-cv-00650-AWA-LRL

(E.D. Va. Dec. 18, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2

Appeal: 13-2048

Doc: 24

Filed: 06/02/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

materials before this court and oral argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3