Filed: Oct. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 02, 2014
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. In this action, MEE Direct, LLC and MEE Apparel, LLC (MEE) raised claims of unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty against Defendant Tran Source Logistics, Inc. (TSL). MEE also asserted unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty claims against Howard Cates, the president of TSL, and sought to pierce the corporate veil. The district court entered judgment of $368,000 for ME
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. In this action, MEE Direct, LLC and MEE Apparel, LLC (MEE) raised claims of unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty against Defendant Tran Source Logistics, Inc. (TSL). MEE also asserted unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty claims against Howard Cates, the president of TSL, and sought to pierce the corporate veil. The district court entered judgment of $368,000 for MEE..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
In this action, MEE Direct, LLC and MEE Apparel, LLC (MEE) raised claims of unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty against Defendant Tran Source Logistics, Inc. (TSL). MEE also asserted unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty claims against Howard Cates, the president of TSL, and sought to pierce the corporate veil. The district court entered judgment of $368,000 for MEE on the breach of contract claim and found for Defendants on the remaining claims. MEE now appeals, arguing that the court erroneously found no merit to either the unjust enrichment claim against Cates or MEE's attempt to pierce the corporate veil. After careful review, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. MEE Direct, LLC v. Tran Source Logistics, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00455-JKB (D. Md. Feb. 14 & Mar. 21, 2014). 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 process.
AFFIRMED.
