Mee Direct, LLC v. Tran Source Logistics, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00455-JKB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999447668]. [14-1226]

Appeal: 14-1226

Doc: 25

Filed: 10/02/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1226

MEE DIRECT, LLC; MEE APPAREL, LLC,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
TRAN SOURCE LOGISTICS, INC.; HOWARD CATES,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-00455-JKB)

Submitted:

September 29, 2014

Before DUNCAN
Circuit Judge.

and

WYNN,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

October 2, 2014

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ted Poretz, ELLENOFF GROSSMAN & SCHOLE LLP, New York, New York,
for Appellants.
Louis J. Rizzo, Jr., Arthur D. Kuhl, REGER,
RIZZO & DARNALL LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1226

Doc: 25

Filed: 10/02/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
In this action, MEE Direct, LLC and MEE Apparel, LLC
(MEE) raised claims of unjust enrichment, breach of contract,
and

breach

of

fiduciary

duty

against

Defendant

Tran

Source

Logistics, Inc. (TSL). MEE also asserted unjust enrichment and
breach

Cates,

the

president of TSL, and sought to pierce the corporate veil.

The

district
breach

of

fiduciary

court
of

remaining

duty

entered

contract
claims.

judgment

claim
MEE

claims

and

now

against

of

Howard

$368,000

found

appeals,

for

MEE

on

the

Defendants

on

the

arguing

for

that

the

court

erroneously found no merit to either the unjust enrichment claim
against Cates or MEE’s attempt to pierce the corporate veil.
After careful review, we find no reversible error.

Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

MEE

Direct, LLC v. Tran Source Logistics, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00455JKB (D. Md. Feb. 14 & Mar. 21, 2014).

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

2