Fidelity and Guaranty Life Ins v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd., No. 08-1599 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1599 FIDELITY AND GUARANTY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Maryland corporation; SETTLEMENT FUNDING, LLC, d/b/a Peachtree Settlement Funding, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. RAPID SETTLEMENTS, LTD., Defendant Appellant, FIDELITY AND GUARANTY ASSIGNMENT CORPORATION, Claimant Appellee, and LUCILLE HARROD; BROOKE SCHUMM, III, Defendants. No. 08-2303 FIDELITY AND GUARANTY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Maryland corporation; SETTLEMENT FUNDING, LLC, d/b/a Peachtree Settlement Funding, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. RAPID SETTLEMENTS, LTD., Defendant Appellant, FIDELITY AND GUARANTY ASSIGNMENT CORPORATION, Claimant Appellee, and LUCILLE HARROD; BROOKE SCHUMM, III, Defendants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:05-cv-02732-CCB) Submitted: July 20, 2009 Decided: October 23, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stewart A. Feldman, THE FELDMAN LAW FIRM, L.L.P., Houston, Texas, for Appellant. Elyse L. Strickland, SELZER, GURVITCH, RABIN & OBECNY, CHTD., Bethesda, Maryland; H. Mark Stichel, GOHN, HANKEY & STICHEL, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland; Stephen H. Kaufman, OFFIT KURMAN, P.A., Owings Mills, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Rapid court s Rapid orders Settlements, enjoining Settlements, Settlements against in Rapid reconsideration. an granting this Ltd., arbitration summary interpleader Settlements appeals and the proceeding judgment action, its from district filed against imposing counsel, by Rapid sanctions and denying We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the parties and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rapid Settlements, Ltd. v. Settlement Funding, LLC, No. 1:05-cv-02732CCB (D. Md. Mar. 6, 2007, Sept. 27, 2007, Apr. 15, 2008, and filed Oct. 15, 2008; entered Oct. 16, 2008). We dispense with oral contentions argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
