UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1541

CORSAIR SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND, L.P., 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

AJD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATED, 

 Defendant – Appellant, 

 and 

ENGINEERED FRAMING SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED; JOHN J. HILDRETH, 

P.E.; MARIE NOELLE HILDRETH; EFS STRUCTURES, INCORPORATED, 

 Defendants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:06-cv-02081-WDQ) 

Submitted: September 18, 2009 Decided: October 13, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Robert P. Ewing, EWING & KREISER, P.C., Conshohocken, 

Pennsylvania; Matthew T. Murnane, VENABLE, LLP, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Jessica A. duHoffmann, Robert S. 

Brennen, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, PC, Baltimore, Maryland; Matthew 
S. Sturtz, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, PC, Towson, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

2 
PER CURIAM: 

 AJD Construction Company, Incorporated (“AJD”), 

appeals a district court order granting summary judgment to 

Corsair Special Situations Fund, L.P. (“Corsair”), denying AJD’s 

motion for summary judgment, awarding damages to Corsair and an 

order denying the motion to alter or amend the judgment. AJD 

claims the court erred in finding the payments it made to an 

escrow account were payments made to Engineered Framing Systems, 

Incorporated (“EFS”). AJD also claims Corsair waived any claim 

it had against the payments and that it should be collaterally 

estopped from asserting a claim against AJD. Finding no error, 

we affirm. 

 This court reviews de novo a district court’s order 

granting summary judgment and views the facts in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party. Bogart v. Chapell, 396 F.3d 

548, 555 (4th Cir. 2005). Summary judgment is appropriate when 

no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(c); Bogart, 396 F.3d at 555. Summary judgment will be 

granted unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the 

nonmoving party on the evidence presented. Anderson v. Liberty 

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). 

 We find AJD had notice of Corsair’s right to EFS’ 

accounts receivables, see N.J. Stat. Ann. § 12A:9-406(a), and 

3 
4 

that AJD ignored the notice and continued to make payments to 

EFS by establishing an escrow account. The escrow account was 

nothing more than a method through which AJD could make payments 

to EFS without giving the appearance that it was making direct 

payments in violation of Corsair’s right to the accounts 

receivables. We further find AJD’s waiver and collateral 

estoppel arguments are without merit.* 

 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 

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

 *

 We note AJD has abandoned any challenge to the district 

court’s order denying the motion to alter or amend the judgment. 

Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 

1999) (holding that failure to raise a specific issue in the 

opening brief constitutes abandonment of the issue under Fed. R. 

App. P. 28(a)(9)(A), requiring that the argument section of the 

opening brief contain contentions, reasoning, and authority).