Chesapeake Bay Enterprise, Inc v. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pitt
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00633-HEH, 12-30347-BFK, 13-03073-BFK. Copies to all parties and the district court. . [15-1021]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
CHESAPEAKE BAY ENTERPRISE, INC.,
Defendant - Appellant,
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP,
Third Party Defendant – Appellee,
Third Party Defendant,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
June 29, 2015
July 9, 2015
Before AGEE and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pg: 2 of 3
Steven S. Biss, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant.
McKay, Patrick Potter, Dania Slim, PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN
LLP, Washington, D.C, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 3
Chesapeake Bay Enterprise, Inc., appeals the district court’s
order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting summary
judgment in favor of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, on
Chesapeake Bay’s claims asserting breach of fiduciary duty and
We have reviewed the record included on appeal, as
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
Chesapeake Bay Enter., Inc. v. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, No. 3:14-cv-00633-HEH (E.D. Va. Nov. 25, 2014).
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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?