The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
15-1996•Livia Properties, Ii, LLC v. Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc.
15-1996Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 25, 2016
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1996
LIVIA PROPERTIES, II, LLC,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.; COMCAST OF
CALIFORNIA/MARYLAND/PENNSYLVANIA/VIRGINIA/WEST VIRGINIA,
LLC,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. David A. Faber, Senior
District Judge. (5:14-cv-00053-DAF)
Submitted: March 28, 2016 Decided: April 25, 2016
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark D. Obenshain, Justin M. Wolcott, OBENSHAIN LAW GROUP,
Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellant. William H. Hurd, Stephen
C. Piepgrass, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Harold
Johnson, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Livia Properties, II, LLC, (“Livia”) appeals the district
court’s order dismissing its civil complaint for failure to
state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We agree with the
district court that Livia failed to allege that Jones Lang
LaSalle Americas, Inc., was acting outside the scope of its
agency relationship with Comcast, which deficiency is fatal to
both of Livia’s claims. See Charles E. Brauer Co. v.
NationsBank of Va., N.A., 466 S.E.2d 382, 387 (Va. 1996); Fox v.
Deese, 362 S.E.2d 699, 708 (Va. 1987). Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s judgment. Livia Props., II, LLC v. Jones
Lang LaSalle Ams., Inc., No. 5:14-cv-00053-DAF (W.D. Va. Aug. 7,
2015). 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.