Flexible Foam Products, Inc v. Vitafoam Incorporated
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00105-MR-DLH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999381655]. [13-2449]
Appeal: 13-2449
Doc: 30
Filed: 06/24/2014
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2449
FFP HOLDINGS LLC,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
VITAFOAM INCORPORATED; BRITISH VITA UNLIMITED,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-00105-MR-DLH)
Submitted:
May 29, 2014
Decided:
June 24, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bradley R. Love, Joseph Wendt, BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP,
Indianapolis, Indiana; Frederick S. Barbour, CLONINGER BARBOUR
SEARSON & JONES, PLLC, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant.
A. Ward McKeithen, Everett J. Bowman, Lawrence C. Moore, III,
ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, PA, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-2449
Doc: 30
Filed: 06/24/2014
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
FFP Holdings, LLC appeals the district court’s order
granting the Appellees’ motion for summary judgment on FFP’s
complaint for breach of contract, conversion, and declaratory
judgment.
asset
In the complaint, FFP alleged that pursuant to two
purchase
agreements
with
Vitafoam,
FFP
acquired
an
antitrust claim based on a price fixing scheme orchestrated by
chemical manufacturers.
We review de novo a district court’s order granting
summary judgment.
Inc.,
211
F.3d
Providence Square Assocs., L.L.C. v. G.D.F.,
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.”
is
no
issue
for
trial
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
unless
there
is
“[T]here
sufficient
evidence
favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for
that party.
significantly
If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not
probative,
summary
judgment”
is
proper.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986)
(citations omitted).
“To
succeed
on
a
breach
of
contract
claim,
the
plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a
legally
enforceable
obligation
existed
between
it
and
the
defendant; that the defendant breached that obligation; and that
2
Appeal: 13-2449
the
Doc: 30
Filed: 06/24/2014
plaintiff
incurred
Pg: 3 of 4
damages
as
a
result
of
the
breach.”
Cent. Tel. Co. of Va. v. Sprint Commc’n Co. of Va., 715 F.3d
501, 517 (4th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted) (analyzing Virginia
and North Carolina contract law).
written
and,
construe
the
when
its
contract
terms
“[W]e interpret a contract as
are
according
to
clear
and
its
unambiguous,
plain
meaning.”
we
Id.
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
that, although the district court did not cite the applicable
provision in the asset purchase agreements, the court did not
err in concluding that FFP did not acquire the antitrust claim
in those agreements.
See Eisenberg v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 301
F.3d 220, 222 (4th Cir. 2002) (we may “affirm on any basis
fairly supported by the record”).
The antitrust claim did not
fall within the assets transferred because, under the the plain
meaning
of
the
relate
exclusively
Additionally,
asset
because
purchase
to
FFP
the
agreements,
the
“business”
acquired
did
not
acquire
the
claim
did
by
claim
in
not
FFP.
the
purchase agreements, its claim for conversion fails as a matter
of law.
See Gallimore v. Sink, 218 S.E.2d 181, 183 (N.C. Ct.
App. 1975) (plaintiff must demonstrate ownership of property and
a
wrongful
conversion
of
that
property
conversion claim under North Carolina law).
3
by
the
defendant
for
Appeal: 13-2449
Doc: 30
Filed: 06/24/2014
Pg: 4 of 4
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
dispense
with
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this Court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
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?