Chang v. Yue Tian ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2221
RICHARD CHANG, a/k/a Chi Ting Chang; GIANT
STEEL ENTERPRISE COMPANY, LIMITED, a Maryland
Corporation; JOHN D. HEMENWAY,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
YUE TIAN; MARGAS AND ZAMBETIS INVESTMENTS,
INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 05-1099
RICHARD CHANG, a/k/a Chi Ting Chang; GIANT
STEEL ENTERPRISE COMPANY, LIMITED, a Maryland
Corporation; JOHN D. HEMENWAY,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
YUE TIAN; MARGAS AND ZAMBETIS INVESTMENTS,
INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 06-1338
RICHARD CHANG, a/k/a Chi Ting Chang, et. al,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
JOHN D. HEMENWAY,
Party in Interest - Appellant,
and
GIANT STEEL ENTERPRISE COMPANY, LIMITED, a
Maryland Corporation,
Plaintiff,
versus
YUE TIAN; MARGAS AND ZAMBETIS INVESTMENTS,
INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 06-1935
RICHARD CHANG, a/k/a Chi Ting Chang; GIANT
STEEL ENTERPRISE COMPANY, LIMITED, a MD
Corporation,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
YUE TIAN; MARGAS AND ZAMBETIS INVESTMENTS,
INCORPORATED,
- 2 -
Defendants - Appellees,
versus
JOHN D. HEMENWAY,
Party in Interest.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:04-
cv-00977-PJM)
Submitted: March 9, 2007 Decided: April 30, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Laurence A. Elgin, Washington, D.C.; Ning Ye, LAW OFFICES OF NING
YE, Flushing, New York, for Appellants. A. Shane Kamkari, KAMKARI
LAW FIRM, Rockville, Maryland; Robert E. Grant, FUREY DOOLAN AND
ABELL, Chevy Chase, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
In the first two appeals, Appellants appeal from the
district court’s orders imposing sanctions and dismissing their
civil action because the subject matter is more properly resolved
in the appropriate state court (No. 04-2221), and denying
reconsideration of that order and imposing additional sanctions
(No. 05-1099).1 Because the latter order was entered while these
cases were before this court on appeal, we previously issued a
limited remand for the district court to address the Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b) motion, see Fobian v. Storage Tech. Corp., 164 F.3d 887(4th Cir. 1999), and for the district court to consider any
substitution of parties pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1), in
light of the death of Plaintiff Richard Chang. The district court
addressed those issues, reinstating the denial of the motion for
reconsideration and the increased sanctions amount and denying the
motion for substitution.
Consolidated with those two appeals are Appellants’
appeals from the district court’s orders denying the motion for
substitution of parties and denying various motions for
reconsideration of that order and other orders entered by the
district court following our limited remand. We have reviewed the
record and the arguments asserted in the parties’ briefs and find
1
Because we have jurisdiction over these appeals, we deny the
Appellee’s motion to dismiss appeals Nos. 04-2221 and 05-1099.
- 4 -
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
disposition of the case and its resolution of the various motions,
except that the court modifies the orders entered after our limited
remand to remove any reference to the ownership of Giant Steel
Enterprise Company, Ltd.2 We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
2
The district court’s rationale for dismissing the case was
that the issues concerned marital property rights, which belong in
the state courts. Following our remand of the case for resolution
of the substitution of parties and the Rule 60(b) motion, the
district court made references to ownership of the corporation as
being resolved. Nothing in the materials before the court suggest
that the ownership issue has been resolved. Thus, we strike such
references from the district court’s orders. We express no opinion
as to the ownership of Giant Steel and the resolution of these
appeals is without prejudice to the parties’ ability to resolve
that issue in the state court if it has not already been so
resolved.
- 5 -