United States of America v. Grahams Construction, Inc., No. 14-1492 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1492 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF POTOMAC VALLEY BRICK AND SUPPLY COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GRAHAMS CONSTRUCTION, INCORPORATED; THE GUARANTEE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA USA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:13-cv-02032-MAB) Submitted: October 31, 2014 Decided: November 12, 2014 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank J. Emig, LAW OFFICES OF FRANK J. EMIG, Laurel, Maryland, for Appellant. Christopher M. Anzidei, LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER M. ANZIDEI, PLLC, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Potomac Valley Brick & Supply Co. (“PVB”) brought this breach of contract (“Grahams”), claim seeking against payment Grahams’ subcontractor, district court JMM granted for Grahams materials Enterprises, summary Construction, that Inc. judgment on PVB Inc. sold (“JMM”). this to The claim in Grahams’ favor, finding that, even if the August 22, 2012, email between representatives of Grahams and JMM constituted a valid contract, PVB was not a third-party beneficiary with standing to bring suit on that contract. holding. On appeal PVB challenges that We affirm. We review a district court’s order granting summary judgment de novo. D.L. ex rel. K.L. v. Comm’rs, 706 F.3d 256, 258 (4th Cir. 2013). Balt. Bd. of Sch. Summary judgment is appropriate only where “there is no genuine [dispute] as to any material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Seremeth v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs Frederick Cnty., 673 F.3d 333, 336 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). exists, we In “view[] determining the facts whether and the a genuine reasonable dispute inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th Cir. 2011). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to PVB, we agree with the district 2 court that PVB was not an intended Under third-party Maryland law, beneficiary “[a]n of the purported individual is a contract. third-party beneficiary to a contract if the contract was intended for his or her benefit and it clearly appears that the parties intended to recognize him or her as the primary party in interest and as privy to the promise.” CR-RSC Tower I, LLC v. RSC Tower I, LLC, 56 A.3d 170, 212 (Md. 2012) (internal citation omitted). “In applying this standard, [Maryland courts] look to the intention of the parties to recognize a person or class as a primary party in interest as expressed in the language of the instrument and consideration of the surrounding upon the parties’ intention.” circumstances as reflecting Id. at 213 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Here, both the language of the email and the surrounding circumstances indicate that the purported contract was made to ensure that JMM would not bear the cost of any purchases from PVB even if it was unable to complete its work for Grahams. this language There is no evidence that Grahams and JMM intended to benefit PVB. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
