Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Hearn Insulation v. Carlos Bonilla, 11-1118 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 11-1118 Visitors: 16
Filed: Dec. 06, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1118 HEARN INSULATION AND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CARLOS BONILLA; PREMIUM CONSTRUCTION SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:09-cv-00990-AW) Submitted: November 18, 2011 Decided: December 6, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1118 HEARN INSULATION AND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CARLOS BONILLA; PREMIUM CONSTRUCTION SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:09-cv-00990-AW) Submitted: November 18, 2011 Decided: December 6, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey M. Schwaber, Mary Craine Lombardo, Laura M. Gagliuso, STEIN, SPERLING, BENNETT, DE JONG, DRISCOLL & GREENFEIG, P.C., Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Christopher R. Wampler, WAMPLER & SOUDER, LLC, Kensington, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Hearn Insulation and Improvement Company, Inc., appeals the district court’s order denying its motion for attorney’s fees incurred in its action against Carlos Bonilla and his company, Premium Construction Services Corporation. We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hearn Insulation and Improvement Co., Inc. v. Bonilla, No. 8:09-cv- 00990-AW (D. Md. Jan. 21, 2011). 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