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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . [16-1908]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
HAMPTON B. LUZAK, a citizen of the State of New York,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
MERRILL BARRINGER LIGHT; J. TRAVIS BRYANT; MR. J. RANDOLPH
Defendants – Appellees,
PAUL B. BARRINGER, II,
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)
February 28, 2017
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 3
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
Newport News Holdings Corp. v. Virtual City Vision, Inc., 650
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.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
“‘[T]here is no issue
nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.’”
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
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
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?