National Heritage Foundation v. Jonathan Miller, No. 14-1541 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1541 JONATHAN D. MILLER; NYE, PEABODY, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP, Appellants, v. NATIONAL HERITAGE FOUNDATION, INCORPORATED, Appellee. No. 14-1543 DANIEL JOSEPH SCHENDZIELOS; SCHENDZIELOS & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Appellants, v. NATIONAL HERITAGE FOUNDATION, INCORPORATED, Appellee. No. 14-1576 JOHN R. BEHRMANN; NANCY BEHRMANN, Appellants, v. NATIONAL HERITAGE FOUNDATION, INCORPORATED, Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:13-cv-01181-LMB-TCB; 09-10525-BFK) Submitted: March 31, 2015 Decided: April 8, 2015 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John F. Bloss, HIGGINS BENJAMIN PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina; Daniel J. Schendzielos, SCHENDZIELOS & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Greenwood Village, Colorado; Jonathan D. Miller, NYE, PEABODY, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, Santa Barbara, California, for Appellants. David B. Goroff, FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP, Chicago, Illinois; Erika L. Morabito, FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: John R. Behrmann, Nancy Behrmann, and their attorneys, Jonathan Miller, Nye Peabody, Stirling, Hale and Miller, LLP, and Daniel Joseph Schendzielos, Schendzielos & Associates, LLC, appeal from the district court’s order affirming the orders of the bankruptcy court denying the Behrmanns’ motion for leave to pursue litigation against the directors and officers of the Debtor, National Heritage Foundation, Incorporated, and granting National Heritage Foundation’s motion for sanctions. We have reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, reasons stated by the district court. Inc. v. 2014). Miller, No. we affirm for the National Heritage Found., 1:13-cv-01181-LMB-TCB (E.D. Va. May 5, Although we deny National Heritage Foundation’s motion to strike the Appellants’ Reply brief, we grant the motion to submit these appeals on the briefs and 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
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.
