Anand Daniell v. Michael Vukosa, No. 14-1482 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1482 ANAND L. DANIELL, Appellant, v. MICHAEL VUKOSA, Individually on behalf Himself and All Others Similarly Situated; MICHAEL JOSENHANS, Individually on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated; ROBERT COLLIER, Individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; SALLY LEBOW, Plaintiffs – Appellees, and SOURCEFIRE, INC.; JOHN C. BECKER; MARTIN F. ROESCH; STEVEN R. POLK; TIM A. GULERI; MICHAEL CRISTINZIANO; ARNOLD L. PUNARO; CHARLES E. PETERS, JR.; KEVIN M. KLAUSMEYER; CISCO SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED; SHASTA ACQUISITION CORP.; ACQUISITION CORP., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-02271-JFM; 1:13-cv-02332-JFM; 1:13-cv-02377JFM; 1:13-cv-02483-JKB) Submitted: October 31, 2014 Decided: November 19, 2014 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anand L. Daniell, Appellant Pro Se. Edward B. Gerard, Stephen J. Oddo, Justin D. Rieger, ROBBINS ARROYO LLP, San Diego, California; Patrick Charles Smith, DEHAY & ELLISTON, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Yelena Trepetin, Charles J. Piven, Charles Noah Insler, BROWER PIVEN, Stevenson, Maryland; Evan J. Smith, BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania; Mark D. Gately, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Joseph K. Kanada, Erik Jeffrey Olson, MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP, Palo Alto, California; Thomas Matthew Buchanan, WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP, Washington, D.C.; J. Erik Connolly, Robert L. Michels, Dan K. Webb, Andrew J. Yahkind, WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Anand L. Daniell appeals the district court’s order certifying a class for a class action complaint and approving a settlement agreement, thereby overruling Daniell’s objection to the settlement. We reversible error. have reviewed the record and find no Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Daniell v. Vukosa, Nos. 1:13-cv-02271- JFM; 1:13-cv-02332-JFM; 1:13-cv-02377-JFM; 1:13-cv-02483-JKB (D. Md. Apr. 18, 2014). facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3