Angela Bachman v. Toyota Motor Corporation, No. 11-1402 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1402 ANGELA BACHMAN, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jeffrey Bachman, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; TOYOTA MOTOR INCORPORATED, a California Corporation, SALES, U.S.A., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District District of North Carolina, at Durham. District Judge. (1:10-cv-00263-CCE-PTS) Submitted: October 20, 2011 Court for the Middle Catherine C. Eagles, Decided: November 21, 2011 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael W. Patrick, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL W. PATRICK, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Joel H. Smith, Shawn B. Deery, BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP, Columbia, South Carolina; Leslie Lane Mize, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Angela Bachman ( Bachman ), as personal representative of the estate of Jeffrey Bachman, appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her civil complaint. The district court dismissed the action on the grounds that it was barred by res judicata See Jaffe v. because of Bachman s earlier California action. Accredited Surety & Cas. Co., 294 F.3d 584, 590-91 (4th Cir. 2002) (regarding full faith and credit given court actions in any later federal suit). to prior state We review de novo a district court s grant of a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), see Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 179-80 (4th Cir. 2009), reveals no reversible error. and our review of the record Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bachman v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 1:10-cv-00263-CCE-PTS (M.D.N.C. Apr. 14, 2011). dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 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.