Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Meisel v. Ustaoglu, 00-1552 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1552 Visitors: 9
Filed: Mar. 06, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1552 JOEL S. MEISEL; NEW WORLD PARKING, INCORPO- RATED; WORLDWIDE PARKING INCORPORATED, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus BESIR KEMAL USTAOGLU; HASIBE USTAOGLU; REPIMEKS DIS TICARET LIMITED SIRKETI, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-3863-AW) Submitted: January 31, 2001 Decided: March 6, 2001 Before WI
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1552 JOEL S. MEISEL; NEW WORLD PARKING, INCORPO- RATED; WORLDWIDE PARKING INCORPORATED, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus BESIR KEMAL USTAOGLU; HASIBE USTAOGLU; REPIMEKS DIS TICARET LIMITED SIRKETI, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-3863-AW) Submitted: January 31, 2001 Decided: March 6, 2001 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Catherine E. Bocskor, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellants. Steven A. Hammond, HUGHES, HUBBARD & REED, L.L.P., New York, New York; Robert M. Kennedy, HUGHES, HUBBARD & REED, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joel Meisel, New World Parking, Inc., and Worldwide Parking, Inc., appeal the district court’s order dismissing this action on the grounds of forum non conveniens and international comity. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Meisel v. Ustaoglu, No. CA-98-3863-AW (D. Md. filed Mar. 31; entered Apr. 4, 2000). 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 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer