Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Chesapeake Bay Enterprise v. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, 15-1021 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 15-1021 Visitors: 24
Filed: Jul. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1021 CHESAPEAKE BAY ENTERPRISE, INC., Defendant - Appellant, v. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP, Third Party Defendant – Appellee, and REGIONS BANK, Third Party Defendant, CHESAPEAKE TRUST, Plaintiff. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:14-cv-00633-HEH) Submitted: June 29, 2015 Decided: July 9, 2015 Before AGEE and HARRIS, Ci
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1021 CHESAPEAKE BAY ENTERPRISE, INC., Defendant - Appellant, v. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP, Third Party Defendant – Appellee, and REGIONS BANK, Third Party Defendant, CHESAPEAKE TRUST, Plaintiff. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:14-cv-00633-HEH) Submitted: June 29, 2015 Decided: July 9, 2015 Before AGEE and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven S. Biss, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Jack McKay, Patrick Potter, Dania Slim, PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP, Washington, D.C, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Chesapeake Bay Enterprise, Inc., appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, on Chesapeake Bay’s claims asserting breach of fiduciary duty and conversion. We have reviewed the record included on appeal, as well as the parties’ briefs, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Chesapeake Bay Enter., Inc. v. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, No. 3:14-cv-00633-HEH (E.D. Va. Nov. 25, 2014). 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 3
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