Abrasives-South Inc. v. Awuko Abrasives Wandmacher GmbH, No. 16-2295 (4th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2295 ABRASIVES-SOUTH INC., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AWUKO ABRASIVES WANDMACHER GMBH & CO KG; WANDMACHER GMBH; MARTY KORTE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00768-RMG) Submitted: August 16, 2017 Decided: August 24, 2017 Before TRAXLER, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John B. Kern, JOHN B. KERN INTERNATIONAL LAW, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Russell S. Abrams, Karen E. Spain, K & L GATES LLP, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Abrasives-South, Inc., which brought this action against Defendants asserting several state law claims, including claims of interference with contractual relations, fraud and deceit, and unfair trade practices claims, appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendants summary judgment and denying its Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. See Abrasives-South Inc. v. Awuko Abrasives Wandmacher GMBH & Co KG, No. 2:16-cv-00768-RMG (D.S.C. Aug. 17, 2016 & Oct. 4, 2016); see also Hooper v. Ebenezer Sr. Servs. & Rehab. Ctr., 687 S.E.2d 29, 33 (S.C. 2009) (“Equitable tolling may be applied where it is justified under all the circumstances . . . [but it] is a doctrine that should be used sparingly and only when the interests of justice compel its use.”). 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.