Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Michelle Pharr v. Rajnish Jain, 12-1941 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-1941 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 22, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1941 MICHELLE D. PHARR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RAJNISH K. JAIN; AKHIL JAIN; RAJNISH K. JAIN IRREVOCABLE TRUST 99-2 TRUSTEE AKHIL JAIN; JAIN AND ASSOCIATES, L.P.; RAJ S. RAHIL; THE MARIAPPA 2005 REVOCABLE TRUST DATED 11/10/2005 TRUSTEES SUDESH MARIAPPA AND EIKO HIRABAYASHI; JRS PARTNERS, LLC; SUFFOLK LODGING PARTNERS, LLC; TOWN CENTER HOSPITALITY, LLC; FIRST LODGING PARTNERS, LLC; LANDMARK HOTEL GROUP, LLC; PENINSULA HOSP
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1941 MICHELLE D. PHARR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RAJNISH K. JAIN; AKHIL JAIN; RAJNISH K. JAIN IRREVOCABLE TRUST 99-2 TRUSTEE AKHIL JAIN; JAIN AND ASSOCIATES, L.P.; RAJ S. RAHIL; THE MARIAPPA 2005 REVOCABLE TRUST DATED 11/10/2005 TRUSTEES SUDESH MARIAPPA AND EIKO HIRABAYASHI; JRS PARTNERS, LLC; SUFFOLK LODGING PARTNERS, LLC; TOWN CENTER HOSPITALITY, LLC; FIRST LODGING PARTNERS, LLC; LANDMARK HOTEL GROUP, LLC; PENINSULA HOSPITALITY, LLC; YORKTOWN LODGING PARTNERS, LLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (2:12-cv-00007-BO) Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: January 22, 2013 Before AGEE, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michelle D. Pharr, Appellant Pro Se. Gary Alvin Bryant, WILLCOX & SAVAGE, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michelle D. Pharr appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Pharr v. Jain, No. 2:12-cv-00007-BO (E.D.N.C. July 23, 2012). 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