Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

JTH Tax, Inc. v. Fein, 09-1321 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-1321 Visitors: 21
Filed: Nov. 18, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1321 JTH TAX, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Liberty Tax Service, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JONATHAN FEIN, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. F. Bradford Stillman, Magistrate Judge. (2:08-cv-00021-FBS) Submitted: November 4, 2009 Decided: November 18, 2009 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Declan
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1321 JTH TAX, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Liberty Tax Service, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JONATHAN FEIN, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. F. Bradford Stillman, Magistrate Judge. (2:08-cv-00021-FBS) Submitted: November 4, 2009 Decided: November 18, 2009 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Declan C. Leonard, Jeffrey L. Rhodes, Stephanie D. Wilson, ALBO & OBLON, L.L.P., Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Christopher D. Davis, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jonathan Fein appeals the magistrate judge’s * order entering judgment in JTH Tax, Incorporated’s favor on its claim for breach of a franchise agreement, as well as its request for a permanent injunction against Fein. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s judgment. See JTH Tax, Inc. v. Fein, No. 2:08-cv-00021-FBS (E.D. Va. entered Jan. 27, 2009; amended by order entered Feb. 23, 2009). 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 * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006). 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