Hampton Luzak v. Merrill Light, et al.


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00501-AJT-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000038756]. [16-1908]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1908 Doc: 59 Filed: 03/09/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1908 HAMPTON B. LUZAK, a citizen of the State of New York, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MERRILL BARRINGER LIGHT; J. TRAVIS BRYANT; MR. J. RANDOLPH LIGHT; COASTAL FOREST RESOURCES COMPANY, a Virginia corporation, Defendants – Appellees, and PAUL B. BARRINGER, II, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00501-AJT-IDD) Submitted: February 28, 2017 Decided: March 9, 2017 Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael R. Smith, Jerrod M. Lukacs, KING & SPALDING, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Justin A. Torres, KING & SPALDING, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Edward J. Fuhr, Matthew P. Bosher, Johnathon E. Schronce, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Appeal: 16-1908 Doc: 59 Filed: 03/09/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Charles B. Molster, III, LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES B. MOLSTER, III, PLLC, Washington, D.C.; William D. Dolan III, LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM D. DOLAN III, P.C., Tysons Corner, Virginia; Robert Vieth, HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER, Tysons Corner, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 16-1908 Doc: 59 Filed: 03/09/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 Luzak the PER CURIAM: Hampton B. appeals district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees on Luzak’s complaint asserting shareholder derivative claims. We review de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment, viewing facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Newport News Holdings Corp. v. Virtual City Vision, Inc., 650 F.3d 423, 435 (4th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment should be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” for trial Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). unless there is “‘[T]here is no issue sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.’” Newport News, 650 F.3d at 434 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986)). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant legal authorities and conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees on Luzak’s claims. order. legal before Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s We dispense with oral argument because the facts and conclusions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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?