Best Medical International, Inc. v. Eckert & Ziegler Nuclitec GmbH, No. 14-2074 (4th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2074 BEST MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Virginia Corporation; BEST VASCULAR, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. ECKERT & ZIEGLER NUCLITEC GMBH, successor to QSA Global GmbH, a German corporation, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cv-00617-CMH-IDD) Submitted: April 30, 2015 Decided: May 11, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James M. Brady, Shawn R. Weingast, BEST MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Springfield, Virginia, for Appellants. C. Dewayne Lonas, Matthew J. Hundley, MORAN REEVES & CONN PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Best Medical International, Inc. (“Best”) appeals the district court’s order granting Eckert & Ziegler Nuclitec GMBH’s (“EZN”) second motion for supplemental attorney’s fees, and a subsequent order denying Best’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have procedural previously history discussed of this the breach factual of background contract case and in our opinions in Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Eckert & Ziegler Nuclitec GMBH, 505 F. App’x 281 (4th Cir. 2013) (No. 11-2089 (L)) and Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Eckert & Ziegler Nuclitec GMBH, 565 F. App’x 232 (4th Cir. 2014) (No. 13-1708). In this third appeal, Best argues that the district court erred in Specifically, awarding Best EZN contends supplemental that the attorney’s merger doctrine fees. under Virginia law precluded the additional award of attorney’s fees and that the award of attorney’s fees was not authorized by the Settlement Agreement. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the material submitted in the joint appendix, and the relevant case law, and find no reversible error in the district court’ award of supplemental attorney’s fees. * Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. * Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. On appeal, Best does not challenge the reasonableness of the award. 2 Eckert & Ziegler Nuclitec GMBH, No. 1:10-cv-00617-CMH-IDD (E.D. Va. filed July 24, 2014 & entered July 25, 2014; Sept. 5, 2014). We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal 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.