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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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