Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 14-1394
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00331-TSE-IDD)
Submitted:
Decided:
October 2, 2014
Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Projects Management Co. (PMC) brought this breach of
contract
after
action
DynCorp
against
DynCorp
mistakenly
made
International
payments
to
LLC
the
(DynCorp)
personal
bank
The
district
court
granted
summary
judgment
to
from
for
DynCorps
deficient
reconsideration,
which
performance.
the
PMC
district
court
filed
denied.
We affirm.
de
novo.
D.L.
ex
rel.
K.L.
v.
Balt.
Bd.
of
Sch.
Summary judgment is
Cnty., 673 F.3d 333, 336 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
marks
omitted).
In
determining
2
whether
genuine
dispute
exists,
we
view[]
the
facts
and
the
reasonable
inferences
v.
Leavitt,
629
F.3d
369,
380
(4th
Cir.
2011).
The
that
one
party
must
prevail
as
matter
of
law.
mere
scintilla
partys] case.
of
evidence
in
support
of
[the
nonmoving
of
breach
of
contract
are
(1)
legally
or
violation
damage
obligation.
The
to
or
the
breach
of
plaintiff
that
obligation;
caused
by
the
and
breach
(3)
of
plaintiff
bears
the
burden
to
establish
the
element
of
upon
compensation.
which
the
rule
of
The fundamental
damages
is
based
is
Id.
Accordingly,
if
(internal
the
quotation
defendants
marks
deficient
omitted).
performance
has
difference
between
the
benefit
it
received
from
the
DynCorp
performed
deficiently
by
making
its
conclusory affidavit.
We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this
court
and