Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Skippy Incorporated v. Lipton Investments, 03-1085 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-1085 Visitors: 41
Filed: Sep. 12, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1085 SKIPPY INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIPTON INVESTMENTS, INCORPORATED; BESTFOODS, INCORPORATED; WILLIAM M. WEBNER; STEPHEN M. TRATTNER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1571-A) Submitted: August 29, 2003 Decided: September 12, 2003 Before WILKINSON, WIDENER, and WILLIAM
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1085 SKIPPY INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIPTON INVESTMENTS, INCORPORATED; BESTFOODS, INCORPORATED; WILLIAM M. WEBNER; STEPHEN M. TRATTNER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1571-A) Submitted: August 29, 2003 Decided: September 12, 2003 Before WILKINSON, WIDENER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Helen Sears, M. H. SEARS LAW FIRM, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Carol T. Stone, Camille Turner, JORDAN, COYNE & SAVITS, L.L.P., Fairfax, Virginia; W. Mack Webner, SUGHRUE MION, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Skippy Incorporated appeals the district court’s order dismissing its complaint, among other reasons, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Skippy Inc. v. Lipton Investments, Inc., No. CA-02-1571-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 20, 2002). In light of our disposition, we deny as moot Appellees’ motions for summary affirmance. 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