Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP v. Hershey , 575 F. App'x 196 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1512
SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
and
ACADIA INVESTMENTS L.C.,
Party-in-Interest,
v.
LOREN W. HERSHEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-2147
SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
and
ACADIA INVESTMENTS L.C.,
Party-in-Interest,
v.
LOREN W. HERSHEY,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-00928-AJT-IDD)
Submitted: June 2, 2014 Decided: June 20, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Loren W. Hershey, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Michael Stern,
SCHNADER, HARRISON, SEGAL & LEWIS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Schnader, Harrison, Segal, & Lewis, LLP filed a
complaint against Loren W. Hershey, a former client of the law
firm, for breach of contract for failure to pay legal fees for
services rendered to Hershey. Hershey counterclaimed, alleging
claims for (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) fraudulent
inducement to enter into the contract; (3) tortious interference
with contract; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress;
(5) conspiracy to injure business interests and trade secrets;
and (6) attempted conspiracy. The district court entered
summary judgment in favor of Schnader on its claim for breach of
contract and on all of Hershey’s counterclaims. The court
subsequently denied Hershey’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) motion,
and granted Schnader’s motions for sanctions against Hershey
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Hershey now appeals.
On appeal, Hershey challenges the district court’s
orders granting summary judgment and denying reconsideration.
We review de novo a district court’s order granting summary
judgment. Providence Square Assocs., L.L.C. v. G.D.F., Inc.,
211 F.3d 846, 850 (4th Cir. 2000). Summary judgment should be
granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as
to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “[T]here is no
issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the
3
nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.
If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly
probative, summary judgment” is proper. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986) (citations omitted).
In addition, we review a district court’s order
denying a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Holland, 214 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2000). Under
Rule 60(b)(2), a district court may relieve a party from a final
judgment due to newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a
new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the
relevant legal authorities and conclude that the district court
did not err in granting summary judgment for Schnader and
denying Hershey’s motion for reconsideration.
On appeal, Hershey also challenges the district
court’s order granting Schnader’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions.
“We review the decision to award sanctions for abuse of
discretion.” Newport News Holdings Corp. v. Virtual City
Vision, Inc., 650 F.3d 423, 443 (4th Cir. 2011) (citation
omitted). However, Hershey has failed in his appellate brief to
develop an argument challenging the court’s order. We therefore
conclude that Hershey has forfeited appellate review of that
order. See Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 653 n.7
4
(4th Cir. 2006) (finding conclusory single sentence in brief
“insufficient to raise on appeal any merits-based challenge to
the district court’s ruling”).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.
We also deny Hershey’s motion to place the appeal in abeyance.
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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5