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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-2184 Doc: 33 Filed: 05/13/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2184 BRIAN A. EISEN, Intervenor - Appellant, v. DCG&T, f/b/o Jack Battaglia/IRA; JACK BATTAGLIA;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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 15-2184 Doc: 33 Filed: 05/13/2016 Pg: 3 of 4 PER CURIAM: Brian approving A. the Eisen appeals settlement from of a the district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?