Abrasives-South Inc. v. Awuko Abrasives Wandmacher Gmb
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:16-cv-00768-RMG. Copies to all parties and the district court. . [16-2295]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff - Appellant,
AWUKO ABRASIVES WANDMACHER GMBH & CO KG; WANDMACHER
GMBH; MARTY KORTE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00768-RMG)
Submitted: August 16, 2017
Decided: August 24, 2017
Before TRAXLER, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John B. Kern, JOHN B. KERN INTERNATIONAL LAW, LLC, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Russell S. Abrams, Karen E. Spain, K & L GATES LLP,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Abrasives-South, Inc., which brought this action against Defendants asserting
several state law claims, including claims of interference with contractual relations, fraud
and deceit, and unfair trade practices claims, appeals the district court’s orders granting
Defendants summary judgment and denying its Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s orders. See Abrasives-South Inc. v. Awuko Abrasives Wandmacher GMBH & Co
KG, No. 2:16-cv-00768-RMG (D.S.C. Aug. 17, 2016 & Oct. 4, 2016); see also Hooper v.
Ebenezer Sr. Servs. & Rehab. Ctr., 687 S.E.2d 29, 33 (S.C. 2009) (“Equitable tolling may
be applied where it is justified under all the circumstances . . . [but it] is a doctrine that
should be used sparingly and only when the interests of justice compel its use.”). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
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?