Harley Hughes v. Immediate Response Tech.
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-01699-LMB-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [15-1973]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
HARLEY A. HUGHES,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A Delaware Limited
Liability Company; IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., A
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-01699-LMB-IDD)
October 27, 2016
November 30, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Virginia Whitner Hoptman, REDMOND PEYTON & BRASWELL LLP,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Michael Joseph Marinello,
KAGAN LAW GROUP, LLC, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellees.
BRIEF: James S. Kurz, Daniel D. Mauler, REDMOND PEYTON &
BRASWELL LLP, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Kagan, KAGAN LAW GROUP, LLC, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee
Immediate Response Technologies, LLC.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Technologies, Inc. (“IRT Inc.”).
In 2014, IRT Inc. was sold to
Hughes alleges that, while the sale was being negotiated, he was
promised that he would be retained as the President and CEO of
IRT LLC and paid a share of certain fees.
Those promises, he
claims, induced him to sign agreements concerning the sale of
agreements do not contain any of the promises alleged by Hughes,
afforded the share of fees he expected.
The operative Amended Complaint of February 26, 2015,
constructive fraud (Count 2); fraudulent inducement (Count 3);
promissory estoppel (Count 4); successor liability (Count 5);
severance (Count 7); and unjust enrichment (Count 8).
the claims, Counts 6 and 7, are also directed at IRT Inc.
IRT LLC responded to the Amended Complaint and its predecessor
Pg: 3 of 4
with motions for summary judgment, IRT Inc. failed to appear and
did not answer in any manner.
Following a hearing on March 13, 2015, the district court
entered an Order awarding summary judgment to IRT LLC on all
claims “[f]or the reasons stated in open court, as well as in
Techs., LLC, No. 1:14-cv-01699 (E.D. Va. Mar. 13, 2015), ECF No.
Hughes filed a motion for reconsideration as to Counts 1
through 4 and 8.
By its Memorandum Opinion and Order of May 6,
2015, the court denied Hughes’s motion for reconsideration and
elaborated on the reasons for awarding summary judgment to IRT
See Hughes v. Immediate Response Techs., LLC, No. 1:14-cv-
01699 (E.D. Va. May 6, 2015), ECF Nos. 79-80.
In the meantime, Hughes had filed a motion for a default
judgment against IRT Inc.
By his Report and Recommendation of
July 17, 2015, the magistrate judge recommended granting in part
2015), ECF No. 93.
Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded
that a default judgment should be entered against IRT Inc. as to
Counts 6 and 7, but that the award should include $35,695.83 in
compensatory damages, rather than the more than $2 million in
attorney’s fees and costs.
Pg: 4 of 4
Thereafter, by its Order of August
judge’s Report and Recommendation, rejecting Hughes’s objections
1:14-cv-01699 (E.D. Va. Aug. 13, 2015), ECF No. 99.
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
submissions together with the argument of counsel, we discern no
We are therefore content to affirm the judgments in
favor of IRT LLC and against IRT Inc. on the cogent reasoning of
the district court.
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?