County Commissioners of Charle v. Panda-Brandywine, L.P., No. 09-2238 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2238 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHARLES COUNTY, MARYLAND, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PANDA-BRANDYWINE, L.P., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:08-cv-03369-AW) Argued: October 28, 2010 Decided: November 17, 2010 Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: William James Murphy, MURPHY & SHAFFER, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Kurt James Fischer, DLA PIPER US LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Robert T. Shaffer, III, Daniel P. Moylan, MURPHY & SHAFFER, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Roger Lee Fink, County Attorney, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHARLES COUNTY, La Plata, Maryland; Melissa L. Mackiewicz, DLA PIPER US LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: On November 10, 2008, the County Commissioners of Charles County, Maryland (the County) filed a petition for declaratory judgment in the Circuit Court for Charles County, Maryland. In its petition, the County sought a judicial declaration of the rights of Panda-Brandywine, L.P. (Panda Energy) under a Treated Effluent Water Purchase Agreement (the Agreement) entered into by the parties. Following removal to the district court, Panda Energy motion filed a to dismiss the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which the district court denied. On August 21, 2009, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. granted the Following a hearing, motion for summary County s the district judgment Panda Energy s cross-motion for summary judgment. and court denied Panda Energy noted a timely appeal. Having arguments, district reviewed and and considered applicable court reached law, the we the record, are correct briefs, persuaded result oral that both on the the jurisdictional issue and on the merits. Accordingly, we affirm the substantially district court s judgment based on the reasoning set forth in the district court s careful and thorough opinions. See County Comm rs of Charles County v. Panda- Brandywine, L.P., No. 8:08-cv-03369-AW (D. Md. May 26, 2009); - 2 - County Comm rs of Charles County, Md. v. Panda-Brandywine, L.P., 663 F. Supp. 2d 424 (D. Md. 2009). 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.
