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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999977913].. [15-1973]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-1973 Doc: 43 Filed: 11/30/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1973 HARLEY A. HUGHES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company; IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., A Maryland Corporation, 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) Argued: October 27, 2016 Decided: 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. ON BRIEF: James S. Kurz, Daniel D. Mauler, REDMOND PEYTON & BRASWELL LLP, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jonathan P. Kagan, KAGAN LAW GROUP, LLC, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee Immediate Response Technologies, LLC. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-1973 Doc: 43 Filed: 11/30/2016 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: Plaintiff Chief Harley Executive A. Hughes of Officer served defendant Technologies, Inc. (“IRT Inc.”). defendant Immediate Response as the President Immediate and Response In 2014, IRT Inc. was sold to Technologies, LLC (“IRT LLC”). 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 IRT Inc. and his employment with IRT LLC. The written agreements do not contain any of the promises alleged by Hughes, and he was neither named President and CEO of IRT LLC nor afforded the share of fees he expected. In December IRT and against 2014, Virginia. asserts LLC Hughes IRT Inc. initiated in the this Eastern civil action District of The operative Amended Complaint of February 26, 2015, eight claims against IRT LLC: fraud (Count 1); constructive fraud (Count 2); fraudulent inducement (Count 3); promissory estoppel (Count 4); successor liability (Count 5); breach of employment contract (Count 6); failure to severance (Count 7); and unjust enrichment (Count 8). the claims, Counts 6 and 7, are also directed at IRT Inc. pay Two of While IRT LLC responded to the Amended Complaint and its predecessor 2 Appeal: 15-1973 Doc: 43 Filed: 11/30/2016 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 [IRT LLC’s] memoranda.” See Hughes v. Immediate Response Techs., LLC, No. 1:14-cv-01699 (E.D. Va. Mar. 13, 2015), ECF No. 57. 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 LLC. 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 and denying Response in part Techs., 2015), ECF No. 93. that LLC, No. motion. See 1:14-cv-01699 Hughes (E.D. v. Va. Immediate July 17, 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 compensatory magistrate and judge enhanced also damages recommended 3 sought by awarding Hughes. $19,747.10 The in Appeal: 15-1973 Doc: 43 Filed: 11/30/2016 attorney’s fees and costs. 13, 2015, the district Pg: 4 of 4 Thereafter, by its Order of August court adopted in full the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, rejecting Hughes’s objections thereto. See Hughes v. Immediate Response Techs., LLC, No. 1:14-cv-01699 (E.D. Va. Aug. 13, 2015), ECF No. 99. Hughes timely noted this appeal, jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. examined the record and assessed the and we possess Having carefully parties’ written submissions together with the argument of counsel, we discern no error. 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. AFFIRMED 4

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?