Case ID: f-appx_19/html/0148-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rei-Jeu CHANG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James S. MAXWELL; Daniel S. Willard; Yue Tian; Floyd Willis, Temporary Trustee, Defendants-Appellees. Richard Chang, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James S. Maxwell; Yue Tian, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 00-1895, 00-1900.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 28, 2001.
    Decided Oct. 1, 2001.
    Ning Ye, Hemenway & Associates; John D. Hemenway, Washington, DC, for appellants. Brian M. Barke, Maxwell & Co., L.L.C., Rockville, MD; Edward J. Hutchins, Jr., Stacey A. Moffet, Eccleston & Wolf, P.C ., Baltimore, MD, for appellees.
    Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In appeal No. 00-1895, Rei-Jeu Chang appeals from the district court’s order abstaining from exercising jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) (1994), to address Rei Jeu’s claim of ownership of the stock of Erie Trade Inc. In appeal No. 00-1900, Richard Chang appeals from the district court’s orders (1) dismissing under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) his complaint alleging that Yue Tian and James Maxwell engaged in conduct intended to inflict emotional distress upon him, and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the briefs, the joint appendices, and the district court’s opinions and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. See Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 286-87, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995) (holding that district court has broad discretion to abstain from exercising jurisdiction under § 2201(a)); Harris v. Jones, 281 Md. 560, 380 A.2d 611, 613 (Md.1977) (setting forth elements of cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress).

Accordingly, we affirm in both of these appeals on the reasoning of the district court. Chang v. Maxwell, No. CA-00-740-PJM (D. Md. filed June 22, 2000; entered June 23, 2000), and Chang v. Maxwell, No. CA-00-495-PJM (D. Md. filed Apr. 25, 2000; entered Apr. 26, 2000 & filed June 1, 2000; entered June 2, 2000). 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.