Harley Hughes v. Immediate Response Tech.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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