Hampton Luzak v. Merrill Light, et al.
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?