Schnader Harrison Segal v. Loren Hershey, No. 13-1512 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1512 SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP, Plaintiff Appellee, and ACADIA INVESTMENTS L.C., Party-in-Interest, v. LOREN W. HERSHEY, Defendant - Appellant. No. 13-2147 SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP, Plaintiff Appellee, and ACADIA INVESTMENTS L.C., Party-in-Interest, v. LOREN W. HERSHEY, Defendant Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:12-cv-00928-AJT-IDD) Submitted: June 2, 2014 Decided: June 20, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Loren W. Hershey, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Michael Stern, SCHNADER, HARRISON, SEGAL & LEWIS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Schnader, Harrison, Segal, & Lewis, LLP filed a complaint against Loren W. Hershey, a former client of the law firm, for breach of contract for failure to pay legal fees for services rendered to Hershey. claims for (1) breach of Hershey counterclaimed, alleging fiduciary duty; (2) fraudulent inducement to enter into the contract; (3) tortious interference with contract; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (5) conspiracy to injure business interests and trade secrets; and (6) attempted conspiracy. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Schnader on its claim for breach of contract and on all of Hershey s counterclaims. The court subsequently denied Hershey s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) motion, and granted Schnader s motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. On orders We appeal, granting review judgment. de Hershey summary novo a for against Hershey Hershey now appeals. challenges judgment district sanctions and court s the denying order district court s reconsideration. granting summary Providence Square Assocs., L.L.C. v. G.D.F., Inc., 211 F.3d 846, 850 (4th Cir. 2000). Summary judgment should be granted if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). [T]here is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the 3 nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment is proper. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986) (citations omitted). In addition, we review a district court s denying a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. order See United States v. Holland, 214 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2000). Under Rule 60(b)(2), a district court may relieve a party from a final judgment due to newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant legal authorities and conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Schnader and denying Hershey s motion for reconsideration. On appeal, Hershey also challenges the district court s order granting Schnader s motion for Rule 11 sanctions. We review the decision discretion. Newport Vision, 650 Inc., omitted). F.3d to News 423, award Holdings 443 sanctions Corp. (4th Cir. for v. abuse Virtual 2011) of City (citation However, Hershey has failed in his appellate brief to develop an argument challenging the court s order. We therefore conclude that Hershey has forfeited appellate review of that order. See Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 653 n.7 4 (4th Cir. 2006) (finding conclusory single sentence in brief insufficient to raise on appeal any merits-based challenge to the district court s ruling ). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s orders. We also deny Hershey s motion to place the appeal in abeyance. 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 in the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5

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.