Best Medical International, In v. Eckert & Ziegler Nuclitec GmbH

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-00617-CMH-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999580754].. [14-2074]

Appeal: 14-2074

Doc: 30

Filed: 05/11/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2074

BEST MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Virginia Corporation;
BEST VASCULAR, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
ECKERT & ZIEGLER NUCLITEC GMBH,
successor to QSA Global GmbH,

a

German

corporation,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00617-CMH-IDD)

Submitted:

April 30, 2015

Decided:

May 11, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James M. Brady, Shawn R. Weingast, BEST MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL,
INC., Springfield, Virginia, for Appellants.
C. Dewayne Lonas,
Matthew J. Hundley, MORAN REEVES & CONN PC, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2074

Doc: 30

Filed: 05/11/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Best

Medical

International,

Inc.

(“Best”)

appeals

the

district court’s order granting Eckert & Ziegler Nuclitec GMBH’s
(“EZN”) second motion for supplemental attorney’s fees, and a
subsequent order denying Best’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.
We

have

procedural

previously
history

discussed

of

this

the

breach

factual
of

background

contract

case

and

in

our

opinions in Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Eckert & Ziegler Nuclitec
GMBH, 505 F. App’x 281 (4th Cir. 2013) (No. 11-2089 (L)) and
Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Eckert & Ziegler Nuclitec GMBH, 565 F.
App’x 232 (4th Cir. 2014) (No. 13-1708).
In this third appeal, Best argues that the district court
erred

in

Specifically,

awarding
Best

EZN

contends

supplemental
that

the

attorney’s

merger

doctrine

fees.
under

Virginia law precluded the additional award of attorney’s fees
and that the award of attorney’s fees was not authorized by the
Settlement Agreement.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the

material submitted in the joint appendix, and the relevant case
law, and find no reversible error in the district court’ award
of supplemental attorney’s fees. *

Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court.

*

Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v.

On appeal, Best does not challenge the reasonableness of
the award.

2

Appeal: 14-2074

Doc: 30

Filed: 05/11/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

Eckert & Ziegler Nuclitec GMBH, No. 1:10-cv-00617-CMH-IDD (E.D.
Va. filed July 24, 2014 & entered July 25, 2014; Sept. 5, 2014).
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3