Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Johnny Belsome v. Paul Burks, 14-1028 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-1028 Visitors: 25
Filed: Oct. 10, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1028 JOHNNY BELSOME; TIMOTHY ALLEN; JODY HINKLEY; DONALD MARCEL; KEITH HINKLEY; STARR ATCHISON; EDWARD THIEL; BRETT HUNTER; TARA BELSOME, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. PAUL R. BURKS; REX VENTURE GROUP, LLC, d/b/a Zeekrewards.com, Defendants – Appellees, KENNETH D. BELL, as the appointed Receiver of Rex Venture Group, LLC et al., Intervenor – Appellee. Appeal from the
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1028 JOHNNY BELSOME; TIMOTHY ALLEN; JODY HINKLEY; DONALD MARCEL; KEITH HINKLEY; STARR ATCHISON; EDWARD THIEL; BRETT HUNTER; TARA BELSOME, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. PAUL R. BURKS; REX VENTURE GROUP, LLC, d/b/a Zeekrewards.com, Defendants – Appellees, KENNETH D. BELL, as the appointed Receiver of Rex Venture Group, LLC et al., Intervenor – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:12-cv-00800-GCM) Submitted: September 29, 2014 Decided: October 10, 2014 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marc R. Michaud, New Orleans, Louisiana, for Appellants. Noell P. Tin, Jacob H. Sussman, TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Irving M. Brenner, Kenneth D. Bell, Matthew E. Orso, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from the district court’s order denying a motion to lift the stay imposed in the underlying Receivership. We have reviewed the record included on appeal, as well as the parties’ briefs, and find no abuse of discretion by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Belsome v. Burks, No. 3:12-cv- 00800-GCM (W.D.N.C. Dec. 30, 2013). 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 3
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