Mee Direct, LLC v. Tran Source Logistics, Inc., No. 14-1226 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1226 MEE DIRECT, LLC; MEE APPAREL, LLC, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. TRAN SOURCE LOGISTICS, INC.; HOWARD CATES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00455-JKB) Submitted: September 29, 2014 Before DUNCAN Circuit Judge. and WYNN, Circuit Decided: Judges, and October 2, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ted Poretz, ELLENOFF GROSSMAN & SCHOLE LLP, New York, New York, for Appellants. Louis J. Rizzo, Jr., Arthur D. Kuhl, REGER, RIZZO & DARNALL LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In this action, MEE Direct, LLC and MEE Apparel, LLC (MEE) raised claims of unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty against Defendant Tran Source Logistics, Inc. (TSL). MEE also asserted unjust enrichment and breach Cates, the president of TSL, and sought to pierce the corporate veil. The district breach of fiduciary court of remaining duty entered contract claims. judgment claim MEE claims Howard of $368,000 found and now against for appeals, MEE on the Defendants on the arguing for that the court erroneously found no merit to either the unjust enrichment claim against Cates or MEE s attempt to pierce the corporate veil. After careful review, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. MEE Direct, LLC v. Tran Source Logistics, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00455JKB (D. Md. Feb. 14 & Mar. 21, 2014). 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 2

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.