Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
No. 14-1156
EDWINA C. ROGERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JON DEANE, CPA; GAFFEY DEANE TALLEY, PLLC, a successor in
part to Murphy Deane & Company, PLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:13-cv-00098-GBL-TRJ)
Submitted:
Decided:
November 6, 2014
PER CURIAM:
Edwina
orders
C.
dismissing
Rogers
her
appeals
amended
from
the
district
courts
complaint
and
granting
summary
argues
on
appeal
that
the
district
court
erred
in
contract
law.
and
Rogers
granting
statutory
also
summary
argues
judgment
business
that
to
conspiracy
the
district
Defendants
review
de
novo
the
district
Virginia
court
without
under
erred
granting
in
her
We affirm.
courts
award
of
summary judgment and view the facts in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party.
Summary
Civ. P. 56(a)).
The relevant inquiry on summary judgment is whether
the
evidence
presents
sufficient
disagreement
to
require
Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby,
Inc.,
summary
477
U.S.
judgment
competent
242,
motion,
evidence
251-52
the
sufficient
genuine
issue
of
material
Potomac
Elec.
Power
Co.,
non-moving
to
fact
312
(1986).
party
reveal
for
F.3d
To
the
trial.
645,
withstand
must
649
produce
existence
See
(4th
of
Thompson
Cir.
a
v.
2002)
mere
scintilla
of
evidence
in
support
of
[the
non-moving
We will
Additionally, we may
conclude
after
review
of
the
record
and
the
parties briefs that the district court did not reversibly err
in granting summary judgment to Defendants on Rogers claims for
breach of contract and statutory business conspiracy.
Summary
that
the
damages
Rogers
alleged
were
not
caused
by
594 S.E.2d 610, 614 (Va. 2004) (listing the elements of a breach
of contract action); see also Snyder-Falkinham v. Stockburger,
457 S.E.2d 36, 39 (Va. 1995) (listing the essential elements of
a valid contract); Valjar, Inc. v. Maritime Terminals, Inc.,
265 S.E.2d 734, 737 (Va. 1980) (A contract cannot exist if the
parties never mutually assented to terms proposed by either as
essential
to
an
accord.);
Roanoke
Hosp.
Assn
v.
Doyle
&
on
judgment
Rogers
claim
also
was
under
Va.
properly
Code
Ann.
granted
to
18.2-499
The district
court
entitled
correctly
determined
that
Defendants
were
to
business.
See
Multi-Channel
TV
Cable
Co.
v.
clear
and
convincing
evidence
to
prevail
on
claim
of
intentionally,
purposefully,
justification).
4
and
without
lawful
Next,
reversibly
we
err
conclude
in
the
granting
district
summary
court
judgment
did
to
not
Defendants
opposition.
Nguyen
v.
CNA
Corp.,
44
F.3d
234,
242
be
the
denied,
however,
if
additional
evidence
sought
for
439
F.3d
191,
195
(4th
Cir.
2006)
Ingle v.
(addressing
record
in
this
case
does
not
suggest
any
basis
for
issues
of
material
fact
precluding
the
granting
of
Rogers
filed
during
the
pendency
of
this
judicial
notice
of
an
order
of
the
Virginia
Board
of
Defendants
oppose the motion on the ground that the Boards order does not
5
request
fails as unnecessary.
for
supplementation
of
the
record
had
no
bearing
indisputable
Evid.
facts
201(b);
are
United
on
any
of
subject
States
its
to
v.
rulings.
judicial
Zayyad,
Further,
notice.
741
F.3d
only
Fed.
452,
R.
463-64
Deane
is
indisputable,
the
factual
findings
request
We
therefore
deny
for
judicial
notice.
with
are
oral
Rogers
We
motion
to
further
supplement
deny
and
Defendants
adequately
because
presented
in
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED