FRANK GAUS, III; KRISTI GAUS, his wife v. VERTEX NON-PROFIT HOLDINGS, INC., A Corporation

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1317
FRANK GAUS, III; KRISTI GAUS, his wife,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
VERTEX NON-PROFIT HOLDINGS, INC., A Corporation,
Defendant - Appellee,
No. 23-1319
FRANK GAUS, III; KRISTI GAUS, his wife,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
EYP MISSION CRITICAL FACILITIES, INC., A Corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
at Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cv-00160-TSK-MJA; 1:19-
cv-00014-TSK)
Submitted: March 28, 2024 Decided: May 30, 2024

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before HARRIS, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Samuel J. Pasquarelli, SHERRARD, GERMAN & KELLY, P.C., Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, for Appellants. Peter T. DeMasters, Stanley A. Heflin III, FLAHERTY,
SENSABAUGH, BONASSO, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia; Michael A. Weiner,
BENNETT, BRICKLIN & SALTZBERG, LLC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Mario
Bordogna, CLARK HILL, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Frank Gaus, III, and Kristi Gaus (“Appellants”)
appeal the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to Vertex Non-Profit
Holdings, Inc., and EYP Mission Critical Facilities, Inc. (“Appellees”), on their negligence
and loss of consortium claims. We review the district court’s orders de novo, “applying
the same legal standards as the district court and viewing all facts and reasonable inferences
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Ballengee v. CBS Broad., Inc., 968
F.3d 344, 349 (4th Cir. 2020).
Upon reviewing the record, we agree with the district court that Appellants have
failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact that Appellees breached a duty. See
Aikens v. Debow, 541 S.E.2d 576, 580 (W. Va. 2000) (“No action for negligence will lie
without a duty broken.”). Specifically, there is no evidence upon which a jury could find
that either Appellee was responsible for the erroneous single-line drawing upon which
Appellants base their claims. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Gaus v.
Gen. Servs. Admin. of the U.S., No. 1:18-cv-00160-TSK-MJA (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 9, 2023;
Mar. 14, 2023). 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 --