BARBARA SOPKIN, Citizen of Israel in Her Capacity as Assignee of Lucre Investments… v. JILL C. MENDELSON, Executor of Estate of Richard S. Mendelson, Deceased

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1992
BARBARA SOPKIN, Citizen of Israel in Her Capacity as Assignee of Lucre
Investments Ltd, General Partner of Interlase Limited Partnership, a Georgia
Limited Partnership, and in a Derivative Action for Interlase Limited Partnership,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JILL C. MENDELSON, Executor of Estate of Richard S. Mendelson, Deceased;
RICHARD S. MENDELSON TRUST, H. Carter Land III, Trustee; LAND,
CARROLL & BLAIR, P.C., f/k/a Land Clark Carroll Mendelson Blair P.C.; ANN
NICOLE KATHAN,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
JOHN TOOTHMAN, Attorney; MADELINE TRAINOR, Attorney; JOHN DOES
1-5, Trustees of Richard S. Mendelson Trust; H. JASON GOLD, Attorney,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-01146-CMH-IDD)
Submitted: February 1, 2024 Decided: March 14, 2024
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Barbara Sopkin, Appellant Pro Se. Robert E. Draim, HUDGINS LAW FIRM, PC,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Barbara Sopkin appeals the district court’s September 1, 2022, order granting
Appellees’ motions for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and directing Sopkin to pay a
monetary sanction. After reviewing the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we
discern no reversible error. See In re Bees, 562 F.3d 284, 287 (4th Cir. 2009) (explaining
standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Sopkin v.
Mendelson, No. 1:16-cv-01146-CMH-IDD (E.D. Va., Sept. 1, 2022). 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

-- 3 of 3 --