Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Thomas Lampert v. Tams Management, Inc., 16-1744 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-1744 Visitors: 12
Filed: Apr. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1744 THOMAS K. LAMPERT, as Trustee for the Thomas K. Lampert Irrevocable Trust, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TAMS MANAGEMENT, INC.; SOUTHERN COAL CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:15-cv-06746) Submitted: February 27, 2017 Decided: April 11, 2017 Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1744 THOMAS K. LAMPERT, as Trustee for the Thomas K. Lampert Irrevocable Trust, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TAMS MANAGEMENT, INC.; SOUTHERN COAL CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:15-cv-06746) Submitted: February 27, 2017 Decided: April 11, 2017 Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John F. Hussell, IV, Andrew L. Ellis, John D. Wooton, Jr., WOOTON, DAVIS, HUSSELL & ELLIS, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Brian A. Glasser, Isaac R. Forman, BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tams Management, Inc. and Southern Coal Corporation appeal the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee on its claims for breach of contract and breach of a guarantee agreement and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lampert v. Tams Mgmt., Inc., No. 5:15-cv-06746 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 11 & 18, 2016; June 22, 2016). 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 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