Kaveh Shahi v. Putnam LLC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:04-cv-02605-JFM,1:04-md-15863-JFM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999429240]. [13-2497]

Appeal: 13-2497

Doc: 26

Filed: 09/04/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2497

KAVEH S. SHAHI; LESLIE S. SHAHI,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
PUTNAM LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:04-cv-02605-JFM; 1:04-md-15863-JFM)

Submitted:

August 25, 2014

Decided:

September 4, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kaveh S. Shahi, CLEARY SHAHI & AICHER, P.C., Rutland, Vermont,
for Appellants. James R. Carroll, Peter Simshauser, Eben Colby,
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, Boston, Massachusetts,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-2497

Doc: 26

Filed: 09/04/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Kaveh
appeal

from

dismissing

S.

the

Shahi

and

district

count

IV

of

Leslie

S.

court’s
their

Shahi

August

initial

(“the

26,

Shahis”)

2013

complaint

order

and

its

November 27, 2013 order dismissing their amended complaint in
their civil action under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the Securities Act of 1933, and Vermont law.

We affirm.

First, the Shahis claim that the district court did
not have jurisdiction over their action as of July 18, 2012, the
date on which the court issued an order directing them to show
cause why their action should not be administratively closed.
The Shahis, however, fail to support this claim in accordance
with

Fed.

R.

App.

argument . . . must
the

reasons

parts

of

for
the

P.

28(a)(8)(A)

(“[T]he

contain . . . appellant’s

them,

with

record

on

citations
which

to

the

[appellant’s]

contentions

the

authorities

appellant

and
and

relies.”).

We therefore deem this claim abandoned.

See Wahi v. Charleston

Area

607

Med.

Ctr.,

Inc.,

562

F.3d

599,

(4th

Cir.

2009);

Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.
1999). *

*

We decline to consider the Shahis’ contention — premised
on the summary assertions they raise in support of their
jurisdictional claim — that the district court erred in denying
their motion for a suggestion of remand because this contention
(Continued)
2

Appeal: 13-2497

Doc: 26

Filed: 09/04/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

Next, with respect to the district court’s dismissal
of count IV of the Shahis’ initial complaint for a violation of
the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act, Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9, § 2453,
we have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal
and find no reversible error.
affirm

for

the

Shahi v. Putnam

reasons

LLC,

No.

Accordingly, as to that count, we
stated

by

the

1:04-cv-02605-JFM

district
(D. Md.

court.

Aug.

26,

2013).
With respect to the district court’s dismissal of the
amended complaint, we also find no reversible error.

Counts I,

II, and V of the amended complaint — which sought relief under
the Vermont Securities Act, Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9, § 5501, and
Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77l(a)(2),
were

properly

dismissed,

as

the

Shahis

did

not

plead

these

counts with the particularity required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
Count III of the amended complaint — which sought “rescission”
under Vermont common law — fails because rescission is a remedy
under Vermont law, not a cause of action.

Wilk Paving, Inc. v.

Southworth Milton, Inc., 649 A.2d 778, 783 (Vt. 1994).

Finally,

we deem waived the Shahis’ challenge to the district court’s
dismissal

of

count

IV

of

the

amended

complaint

is raised for the first time in their reply brief.
INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).

3

because

the

Yousefi v.

Appeal: 13-2497

Doc: 26

Filed: 09/04/2014

Pg: 4 of 4

Shahis fail to provide a clear argument as to how or why the
district court erred in dismissing this count.

See Belk, Inc.

v. Meyer Corp., U.S., 679 F.3d 146, 153 n.6 (4th Cir. 2012).
We therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

dismissal

of

the

amended complaint.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

4