Brian Eisen v. DCG&T
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00067-JAG. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999822236]. [15-2184, 15-2262]
Appeal: 15-2184
Doc: 33
Filed: 05/13/2016
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2184
BRIAN A. EISEN,
Intervenor - Appellant,
v.
DCG&T, f/b/o Jack Battaglia/IRA; JACK BATTAGLIA; DCG&T f/b/o
Lori Battaglia/IRA,
Plaintiffs – Appellees,
and
GLADE M. KNIGHT; MICHAEL S. WATERS; ROBERT M. WILY; BRUCE H.
MATSON; JAMES C. BARDEN; APPLE REIT NINE, INC., now known as
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc.,
Defendants – Appellees,
KRISTAN GATHRIGHT;
PERRY; DOES 1-10,
JUSTIN
KNIGHT;
DAVID
MCKENNEY;
BRYAN
Defendants.
No. 15-2262
DCG&T, f/b/o Jack Battaglia/IRA; JACK BATTAGLIA; DCG&T f/b/o
Lori Battaglia/IRA,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
Appeal: 15-2184
Doc: 33
Filed: 05/13/2016
Pg: 2 of 4
BRIAN A. EISEN,
Intervenor – Appellee,
and
GLADE M. KNIGHT; MICHAEL S. WATERS; ROBERT M. WILY; BRUCE H.
MATSON; JAMES C. BARDEN; APPLE REIT NINE, INC., now known as
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc.; KRISTAN GATHRIGHT; DAVID
MCKENNEY; JUSTIN KNIGHT; BRYAN PERRY; DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00067-JAG)
Submitted:
April 29, 2016
Decided:
May 13, 2016
Before KING, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael L. Donner, Sr., CARRELL BLANTON FERRIS & ASSOCIATES,
PLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Jeffrey
Hamilton Geiger, SANDS ANDERSON PC, Richmond, Virginia; Kevin
Peter Roddy, WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, PA, Woodbridge, New
Jersey, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
Elizabeth F. Edwards,
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Charles William McIntyre,
Jr., MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 15-2184
Doc: 33
Filed: 05/13/2016
Pg: 3 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Brian
approving
A.
the
Eisen
appeals
settlement
from
of
a
the
district
shareholder
court’s
derivative
order
action
filed by Jack Battaglia and DCG&T, for the benefit of the IRAs
of Jack and Lori Battaglia (collectively “Plaintiffs”), against
the directors and officers of Apple REIT Nine, Inc. now known as
Apple
Hospitality
REIT,
Inc.
The
Plaintiffs
cross-appeal,
asserting that Eisen lacked standing to challenge the settlement
in the district court and lacks standing to appeal.
section
13.1-735.1(A)
of
the
Code
of
Pursuant to
Virginia,
once
a
stockholder signs and returns an appraisal form seeking fair
value for his shares, he loses all right as a shareholder and
the appraisal becomes his only remedy. *
Va. Code Ann. § 13.1-
735(A); see Adams v. U.S. Distrib. Corp., 34 S.E.2d 244 (Va.
1945).
Accordingly,
once
Eisen
opted
to
pursue
his
appraisal
rights, he no longer had standing to challenge the settlement of
the shareholder derivative action, and he does not have standing
to appeal from the settlement of that action.
*
See Lujan v.
Eisen is a member of the class that will receive a
distribution under the terms of the settlement. However, as was
discussed during the Fairness Hearing in the district court, any
recovery Eisen receives from the settlement will likely be
applied against the value he receives for his shares in the
appraisal action because the appraisal proceeding is Eisen’s
exclusive remedy. See Adams, 34 S.E.2d at 245.
3
Appeal: 15-2184
Doc: 33
Filed: 05/13/2016
Pg: 4 of 4
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (discussing
elements of standing).
We therefore dismiss appeal No. 15-2184.
In light of the dismissal of Eisen’s appeal, we dismiss as moot
appeal No. 15-2262.
facts
and
materials
legal
before
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
adequately
this
and
argument
court
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
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?