Kaveh Shahi v. Putnam LLC, No. 13-2497 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2497 KAVEH S. SHAHI; LESLIE S. SHAHI, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. PUTNAM LLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:04-cv-02605-JFM; 1:04-md-15863-JFM) Submitted: August 25, 2014 Decided: September 4, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kaveh S. Shahi, CLEARY SHAHI & AICHER, P.C., Rutland, Vermont, for Appellants. James R. Carroll, Peter Simshauser, Eben Colby, SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kaveh appeal from dismissing S. the Shahi and district count IV of Leslie S. court s their Shahi August initial ( the 26, Shahis ) 2013 complaint order and its November 27, 2013 order dismissing their amended complaint in their civil action under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933, and Vermont law. We affirm. First, the Shahis claim that the district court did not have jurisdiction over their action as of July 18, 2012, the date on which the court issued an order directing them to show cause why their action should not be administratively closed. The Shahis, however, fail to support this claim in accordance with Fed. R. App. argument . . . must the reasons parts of for the P. 28(a)(8)(A) ( [T]he contain . . . appellant s them, with record on citations which to the [appellant s] contentions the authorities appellant and and relies. ). We therefore deem this claim abandoned. See Wahi v. Charleston Area 607 Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, (4th Cir. 2009); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999). * * We decline to consider the Shahis contention premised on the summary assertions they raise in support of their jurisdictional claim that the district court erred in denying their motion for a suggestion of remand because this contention (Continued) 2 Next, with respect to the district court s dismissal of count IV of the Shahis initial complaint for a violation of the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act, Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9, § 2453, we have reviewed the parties briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. affirm for the Shahi v. Putnam reasons LLC, No. Accordingly, as to that count, we stated by the 1:04-cv-02605-JFM district (D. Md. court. Aug. 26, 2013). With respect to the district court s dismissal of the amended complaint, we also find no reversible error. Counts I, II, and V of the amended complaint which sought relief under the Vermont Securities Act, Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9, § 5501, and Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77l(a)(2), were properly dismissed, as the Shahis did not plead these counts with the particularity required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Count III of the amended complaint which sought rescission under Vermont common law fails because rescission is a remedy under Vermont law, not a cause of action. Wilk Paving, Inc. v. Southworth Milton, Inc., 649 A.2d 778, 783 (Vt. 1994). Finally, we deem waived the Shahis challenge to the district court s dismissal of count IV of the amended complaint is raised for the first time in their reply brief. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). 3 because the Yousefi v. Shahis fail to provide a clear argument as to how or why the district court erred in dismissing this count. See Belk, Inc. v. Meyer Corp., U.S., 679 F.3d 146, 153 n.6 (4th Cir. 2012). We therefore affirm the district court s dismissal of the amended complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

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.