Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01996/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01996-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Comcast of California/Maryland/Pennsylvania/Virginia/West Virginia, LLC
Appellee
Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc.
Appellee
Livia Properties, II, LLC
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1996 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/25/2016 Pg: 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

Appeal: 15-1996 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/25/2016 Pg: 2 of 2