United States of America v. Grahams Construction, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:13-cv-02032-MAB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999473102].. [14-1492]

Appeal: 14-1492

Doc: 22

Filed: 11/12/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1492

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF POTOMAC
VALLEY BRICK AND SUPPLY COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GRAHAMS CONSTRUCTION, INCORPORATED; THE GUARANTEE COMPANY OF
NORTH AMERICA USA,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:13-cv-02032-MAB)

Submitted:

October 31, 2014

Decided:

November 12, 2014

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank J. Emig, LAW OFFICES OF FRANK J. EMIG, Laurel, Maryland,
for Appellant.
Christopher M. Anzidei, LAW OFFICES OF
CHRISTOPHER M. ANZIDEI, PLLC, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1492

Doc: 22

Filed: 11/12/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Potomac Valley Brick & Supply Co. (“PVB”) brought this
breach

of

contract

(“Grahams”),

claim

seeking

against

payment

Grahams’

subcontractor,

district

court

JMM

granted

for

Grahams
materials

Enterprises,

summary

Construction,
that

Inc.

judgment

on

PVB

Inc.

sold

(“JMM”).
this

to
The

claim

in

Grahams’ favor, finding that, even if the August 22, 2012, email
between representatives of Grahams and JMM constituted a valid
contract, PVB was not a third-party beneficiary with standing to
bring suit on that contract.
holding.

On appeal PVB challenges that

We affirm.
We review a district court’s order granting summary

judgment de

novo.

D.L.

ex

rel.

K.L.

v.

Comm’rs, 706 F.3d 256, 258 (4th Cir. 2013).

Balt.

Bd.

of

Sch.

Summary judgment is

appropriate only where “there is no genuine [dispute] as to any
material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.”

Seremeth v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs Frederick

Cnty., 673 F.3d 333, 336 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
marks

omitted).

exists,

we

In

“view[]

determining

the

facts

whether

and

the

a

genuine

reasonable

dispute

inferences

therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th Cir. 2011).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
PVB,

we

agree

with

the

district
2

court

that

PVB

was

not

an

Appeal: 14-1492

Doc: 22

intended
Under

Filed: 11/12/2014

third-party

Maryland

law,

Pg: 3 of 4

beneficiary
“[a]n

of

the

purported

individual

is

a

contract.
third-party

beneficiary to a contract if the contract was intended for his
or her benefit and it clearly appears that the parties intended
to recognize him or her as the primary party in interest and as
privy to the promise.”

CR-RSC Tower I, LLC v. RSC Tower I, LLC,

56 A.3d 170, 212 (Md. 2012) (internal citation omitted).

“In

applying this standard, [Maryland courts] look to the intention
of the parties to recognize a person or class as a primary party
in interest as expressed in the language of the instrument and
consideration

of

the

surrounding

upon the parties’ intention.”

circumstances

as

reflecting

Id. at 213 (internal quotation

marks and alterations omitted).
Here,

both

the

language

of

the

email

and

the

surrounding circumstances indicate that the purported contract
was made to ensure that JMM would not bear the cost of any
purchases from PVB even if it was unable to complete its work
for Grahams.
this

language

There is no evidence that Grahams and JMM intended
to

benefit

PVB.

Accordingly,

we

affirm

the

judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal

contentions

are

adequately

3

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 14-1492

before

Doc: 22

this

court

Filed: 11/12/2014

and

Pg: 4 of 4

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

4