Matthew Forbes, et al v. Lenox Financial Mortgage, LLC, et al, No. 11-10241 (11th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 11-10241 ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DECEMBER 13, 2011 JOHN LEY CLERK D. C. Docket No. 1:08-cv-02513-CC MATTHEW E. FORBES, FORBESGALLAGHER, LLC, Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellants, versus LENOX FINANCIAL MORTGAGE, LLC, COGENT CLOSING ASSOCIATES, LLC, JON SHIBLEY, individually, TODD PATRICK EHRLICH, individually, Defendants-Counter Claimants -Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _________________________ (December 13, 2011) Before EDMONDSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and EDENFIELD,* District Judge. _________________________ *Honorable B. Avant Edenfield, United States District Judge for the Southern Distirct of Georgia, sitting by designation. PER CURIAM: After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude that the judgment of the district court is due to be affirmed. Plaintiffs-appellants raise two issues on appeal. First, they challenge the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Lenox Financial Mortgage, LLC, and Defendant Jon Shibley with respect to Plaintiffs unjust enrichment claim. Second, Plaintiffs challenge the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Cogent Closing Associates, LLC, and Defendant Todd Ehrlich on Plaintiffs tortious interference claim. The district court s opinion in Docket 154 resolved the unjust enrichment claim, and the district court s opinion in Docket 156 resolved the tortious interference claim. For reasons fully discussed at oral argument, we conclude that the district court properly resolved both claims. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court on the basis of the district court s opinions in Docket 154 and in Docket 156. AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.