Valuepest.com of Charlotte, Inc. v. Bayer Corporation , 356 F. App'x 658 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                  UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-1663
    VALUEPEST.COM OF CHARLOTTE, INCORPORATED, f/k/a Budget Pest
    Prevention,    Incorporated;    NATIONAL   PEST    CONTROL,
    INCORPORATED; PEST PROS, INCORPORATED,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    v.
    BAYER CORPORATION; BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP; BASF CORPORATION,
    Defendants – Appellees,
    and
    ORKIN;   THE       TERMINIX      INTERNATIONAL      COMPANY    LIMITED
    PARTNERSHIP,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville.  Lacy H. Thornburg,
    District Judge. (1:05-cv-00090-LHT)
    Submitted:    December 2, 2009                 Decided:   December 16, 2009
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael David Bland, WEAVER, BENNETT & BLAND, PA, Matthews,
    North Carolina; Forrest A. Ferrell, Warren A. Hutton, SIGMON,
    CLARK, MACKIE, HUTTON, HANVEY & FERRELL, PA, Hickory, North
    Carolina; David Barry, BARRY & ASSOCIATES, San Francisco,
    California, for Appellants.  Douglas W. Ey, Jr., Catherine E.
    Thompson, Jason D. Evans, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlotte, North
    Carolina; Glen D. Nager, Lawrence D. Rosenberg, JONES DAY,
    Washington, D.C.; Larry S. McDevitt, VAN WINKLE, BUCK, WALL,
    STARNES AND DAVIS, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Valuepest.com      of     Charlotte,   Incorporated,         National
    Pest    Control,     Incorporated        and   Pest     Pros,     Incorporated
    (collectively “Valuepest.com”) appeal the district court’s order
    denying their amended motion to correct the judgment under Fed.
    R. Civ. P. 60(a) and for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed.
    R.   Civ.   P.   60(b)(6).      The    court   denied   the     motion    because
    Valuepest.com      abandoned    the    issue   raised    in   the   motion    by
    failing to raise it on appeal and because granting the requested
    relief would be an improper deviation from the mandate rule.                  We
    affirm.
    In the opening brief, Valuepest.com argues the merits
    of the Rule 60 motion.         However, it fails to discuss the mandate
    rule or whether the court correctly found it had abandoned the
    issue by failing to raise it on appeal.                 It is not until the
    reply brief that Valuepest.com raises either of these issues.
    In A Helping Hand, LLC v. Baltimore County, MD, 
    515 F.3d 356
    ,
    369 (4th Cir. 2008), this court stated that “‘[i]t is a well
    settled rule that contentions not raised in the argument section
    of the opening brief are abandoned.’” (quoting United States v.
    Al-Hamdi, 
    356 F.3d 564
    , 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004)).                   This court
    does not normally consider arguments raised for the first time
    in a reply brief.      See SEC v. Pirate Investor, 
    580 F.3d 233
    , 255
    n.23 (4th Cir. 2009).
    3
    Because Valuepest.com failed to discuss the merits of
    the district court’s reasons for denying the Rule 60 motion in
    the   argument   section     of   the   opening     brief,      we   consider   any
    challenge to be abandoned.          Accordingly, we affirm the district
    court’s order.    We dispense with oral argument because the facts
    and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
    before   the   court   and   argument       would   not   aid    the   decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-1663

Citation Numbers: 356 F. App'x 658

Judges: Michael, Per Curiam, Shedd, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 12/16/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023