Shee Atika Languages, LLC v. Global Linguist Solutions, LLC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00850-LMB-TRJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999577519].. [14-1904]

Appeal: 14-1904

Doc: 28

Filed: 05/05/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1904

SHEE ATIKA LANGUAGES, LLC, a limited liability company
organized under the laws of the State of Alaska with its
principal place of business in Sitka, Alaska; THE SHEE
ATIKA LANGUAGES, LLC, LIQUIDATING TRUST, a trust organized
under the laws of the State of Alaska with its principal
place of business in Sitka, Alaska,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
GLOBAL LINGUIST SOLUTIONS, LLC, a limited liability company
organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its
principal place of business in Falls Church, Virginia,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00850-LMB-TRJ)

Submitted:

February 27, 2015

Decided:

May 5, 2015

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael J. Lockerby, Brian J. Kapatkin, Erik F. Benny, FOLEY &
LARDNER LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellants.
John S. Pachter,
Jennifer A. Mahar, Edmund M. Amorosi, Todd M. Garland, Zachary
D. Prince, SMITH PACHTER MCWHORTER PLC, Tysons Corner, Virginia,

Appeal: 14-1904

Doc: 28

Filed: 05/05/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-1904

Doc: 28

Filed: 05/05/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Appellants Shee Atika Languages, LLC, and The Shee Atika
Languages, LLC, Liquidating Trust, appeal the district court’s
order

granting

action.
erred

by

contract

summary

judgment

to

Appellee

in

civil

On appeal, Appellants contend that the district court
improperly
with

interpreting

Appellee

and

by

various

ignoring

provisions
the

of

their

contract’s

plain

language and instead relying on extrinsic evidence.
We

their

review

whether

a

district

court

erred

We affirm.
in

granting

summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards as
the district court and viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party.

Walker v. Mod-U-Kraf Homes,

LLC, 775 F.3d 202, 208 (4th Cir. 2014).

The district court must

enter summary judgment “against a party who fails to make a
showing

sufficient

to

establish

the

existence

of

an

element

essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will
bear the burden of proof at trial.”

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
“Where

the

record

taken

as

a

whole

could

not

lead

a

rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there
is no genuine issue for trial.”

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.,

LTD. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (internal
quotation marks omitted).

“The nonmoving party cannot create a

genuine issue of material fact through mere speculation or the
3

Appeal: 14-1904

Doc: 28

building

of

Filed: 05/05/2015

one

inference

Pg: 4 of 4

upon

another.”

Othentec

Ltd.

v.

Phelan, 526 F.3d 135, 140 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, and we
conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary
judgment to Appellee.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court.

See Shee Atika Languages, LLC v.

Global Linguist Solutions, LLC, No. 1:13-cv-00850-LMB-TRJ (E.D.
Va. Aug. 4, 2014).
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4