Sae Han Sheet Co., Ltd. v. Eastman Performance Films, LLC, No. 19-2080 (4th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2080 SAE HAN SHEET CO., LTD., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EASTMAN PERFORMANCE FILMS, LLC, Defendant - Appellee, and COMMONWEALTH LAMINATING AND COATING, INC.; EASTMAN CHEMICAL CORP.; JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 20; ABC COMPANIES 1 THROUGH 20; CPFILMS INC., a Delaware Corporation; SUNTEK HOLDING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; 2010 ACQUISITION CORP., a Delaware corporation, Defendants. No. 19-2125 SAE HAN SHEET CO., LTD., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EASTMAN PERFORMANCE FILMS, LLC, Defendant - Appellee, and COMMONWEALTH LAMINATING AND COATING, INC.; EASTMAN CHEMICAL CORP.; JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 20; ABC COMPANIES 1 THROUGH 20; CPFILMS INC., a Delaware Corporation; SUNTEK HOLDING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; 2010 ACQUISITION CORP., a Delaware corporation, Defendants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:18-cv-00074-JLK-RSB) Submitted: October 26, 2020 Decided: November 17, 2020 Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Kimm, KIMM LAW FIRM, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, for Appellant. Robert W. Loftin, Matthew D. Fender, Andrew F. Gann, Jr., MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Sae Han Sheet Co., Ltd. appeals the district court’s orders dismissing Sae Han’s complaints and denying Sae Han’s motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sae Han Sheet Co., Ltd. v. Eastman Performance Films, LLC, No. 4:18-cv00074-JLK-RSB (W.D. Va. Sept. 24, 2019; Oct. 10, 2019). We 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.
