Edwina Rogers v. Jon Deane

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for judicial notice [999421365-2] Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00098-GBL-TRJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999470486].. [14-1156]

Appeal: 14-1156

Doc: 39

Filed: 11/06/2014

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1156

EDWINA C. ROGERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JON DEANE, CPA; GAFFEY DEANE TALLEY, PLLC, a successor in
part to Murphy Deane & Company, PLC,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:13-cv-00098-GBL-TRJ)

Submitted:

October 27, 2014

Decided:

November 6, 2014

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven L. Gremminger, Steven M. Oster, GREMMINGER LAW FIRM,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Dennis J. Quinn, Kristine M.
Ellison, CARR MALONEY PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1156

Doc: 39

Filed: 11/06/2014

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Edwina
orders

C.

dismissing

Rogers

her

appeals

the

district

court’s

complaint

amended

from

and

granting

summary

judgment to Defendants on her second amended complaint alleging
claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, and statutory business conspiracy.
Rogers

argues

on

appeal

that

the

district

court

erred

in

granting summary judgment to Defendants on her claims for breach
of

contract

law.

and

Rogers

granting

statutory

also

summary

argues

judgment

business
that
to

conspiracy

the

district

Defendants

review

de

novo

the

district

Virginia

court

without

request for the opportunity to conduct discovery.
We

under

erred

granting

in
her

We affirm.

court’s

award

of

summary judgment and view the facts in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party.

Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865,

873 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 422 (2013).

“Summary

judgment is appropriate only if the record shows ‘that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’”

Id. (quoting Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(a)).
The relevant inquiry on summary judgment is “whether
the

evidence

presents

a

sufficient

disagreement

to

require

submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one
party must prevail as a matter of law.”
2

Anderson v. Liberty

Appeal: 14-1156

Lobby,

Doc: 39

Inc.,

summary

Filed: 11/06/2014

477

U.S.

judgment

competent

242,

motion,

evidence

251-52

the

sufficient

genuine

issue

of

material

Potomac

Elec.

Power

Co.,

Pg: 3 of 6

non-moving
to

fact
312

(1986).

party

reveal

for

F.3d

To

the

trial.
645,

withstand
must

649

produce

existence
See
(4th

a

of

Thompson
Cir.

a
v.

2002)

(“Conclusory or speculative allegations do not suffice, nor does
a

mere

scintilla

of

evidence

in

support

of

[the

non-moving

party’s] case.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

We will

uphold the district court’s grant of summary judgment unless a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party
on the evidence presented.

See EEOC v. Cent. Wholesalers, Inc.,

573 F.3d 167, 174-75 (4th Cir. 2009).

Additionally, we may

affirm on any ground presented in the record, even if it was not
the basis on which the district court relied in granting summary
judgment.

Bryant v. Bell Atl. Md., Inc., 288 F.3d 124, 132

(4th Cir. 2002).
We

conclude

after

review

of

the

record

and

the

parties’ briefs that the district court did not reversibly err
in granting summary judgment to Defendants on Rogers’ claims for
breach of contract and statutory business conspiracy.

Summary

judgment was properly granted to Defendants on Rogers’ claim for
breach of contract because it is clear from the evidence of
record

that

the

damages

Rogers

alleged

Defendants’ breach of a valid contract.
3

were

not

caused

by

See Filak v. George,

Appeal: 14-1156

Doc: 39

Filed: 11/06/2014

Pg: 4 of 6

594 S.E.2d 610, 614 (Va. 2004) (listing the elements of a breach
of contract action); see also Snyder-Falkinham v. Stockburger,
457 S.E.2d 36, 39 (Va. 1995) (listing the essential elements of
a valid contract); Valjar, Inc. v. Maritime Terminals, Inc.,
265 S.E.2d 734, 737 (Va. 1980) (“A contract cannot exist if the
parties never mutually assented to terms proposed by either as
essential

to

an

accord.”);

Roanoke

Hosp.

Ass’n

v.

Doyle

&

Russell, Inc., 214 S.E.2d 155, 160 (Va. 1975) (distinguishing
types of damages available in a contract action).
Summary
Defendants

on

judgment

Rogers’

claim

also

was

under

Va.

properly
Code

Ann.

granted

to

§§ 18.2-499

& -500 (LexisNexis 2014) for business conspiracy.

The district

court

entitled

correctly

determined

that

Defendants

were

to

judgment as a matter of law on this claim because the record
lacks evidence that Defendants acted with legal malice toward
Rogers’

business.

See

Multi-Channel

TV

Cable

Co.

v.

Charlottesville Quality Cable Operating Co., 108 F.3d 522, 526
(4th Cir. 1997) (noting the elements a plaintiff must establish
by

clear

and

convincing

evidence

to

prevail

on

a

claim

of

business conspiracy under Va. Code. Ann. §§ 18.2-499 & -500);
Simmons v. Miller, 544 S.E.2d 666, 677 (Va. 2001) (stating that
the element of legal malice requires proof that “the defendant
acted

intentionally,

purposefully,

justification”).
4

and

without

lawful

Appeal: 14-1156

Doc: 39

Filed: 11/06/2014

Next,
reversibly

we

err

conclude

in

Pg: 5 of 6

the

granting

district

summary

court

judgment

did

to

not

Defendants

without granting Rogers’ request under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) for
the opportunity to conduct depositions.

The rule requires “that

summary judgment be refused where the nonmoving party has not
had the opportunity to discover information that is essential to
his

opposition.”

Nguyen

v.

CNA

Corp.,

44

F.3d

234,

242

(4th Cir. 1995) (addressing predecessor to Rule 56(d)) (internal
quotation marks omitted).

Requests pursuant to the rule should

be

the

denied,

however,

“if

additional

evidence

sought

for

discovery would not have by itself created a genuine issue of
material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment.”
Yelton,

439

F.3d

191,

195

(4th

Cir.

2006)

Ingle v.

(addressing

predecessor to Rule 56(d)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The

record

in

this

case

does

not

suggest

any

basis

for

concluding that the discovery Rogers sought would have created
genuine

issues

of

material

fact

precluding

the

granting

of

summary judgment on Rogers’ claims for breach of contract and
statutory business conspiracy.
Finally,

Rogers

filed

during

the

pendency

of

this

appeal a motion to supplement the record that requests that we
take

judicial

notice

of

an

order

of

the

Virginia

Accountancy (“Board”) reprimanding Defendant Deane.

Board

of

Defendants

oppose the motion on the ground that the Board’s order does not
5

Appeal: 14-1156

Doc: 39

Filed: 11/06/2014

Pg: 6 of 6

meet any of the requirements for judicial notice under Fed. R.
Evid. 201 and request that we issue sanctions against Rogers’
counsel for their vexatious conduct in filing the motion.
Rogers’

request

fails as unnecessary.

for

supplementation

of

the

record

Although we have the authority under Fed.

R. App. P. 10(e)(2) and 4th Cir. R. 10(d) to order that the
record be supplemented with the Board’s order, there is no need
to do so in this case because the order was not presented to or
considered by the district court in the proceedings below and
thus

had

no

bearing

indisputable
Evid.

facts

201(b);

are

United

(4th Cir. 2014).
reprimanding

on

any

of

subject

States

its
to

v.

rulings.

judicial

Zayyad,

Further,

notice.

741

F.3d

only

Fed.

452,

R.

463-64

Although the filing by the Board of an order

Deane

is

indisputable,

the

factual

findings

contained therein are not.
We
request

therefore

deny

for

judicial

notice.

request for sanctions.
and dispense
contentions

with
are

oral

Rogers’
We

motion

to

further

supplement

deny

and

Defendants’

We affirm the district court’s judgment
argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

6