UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1973

HARLEY A. HUGHES,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A Delaware Limited 

Liability Company; IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., A 

Maryland Corporation,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:14-cv-01699-LMB-IDD)

Argued: October 27, 2016 Decided: November 30, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Virginia Whitner Hoptman, REDMOND PEYTON & BRASWELL LLP, 

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Michael Joseph Marinello, 

KAGAN LAW GROUP, LLC, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellees. ON 

BRIEF: James S. Kurz, Daniel D. Mauler, REDMOND PEYTON & 

BRASWELL LLP, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jonathan P. 

Kagan, KAGAN LAW GROUP, LLC, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee 

Immediate Response Technologies, LLC. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Harley A. Hughes served as the President and 

Chief Executive Officer of defendant Immediate Response 

Technologies, Inc. (“IRT Inc.”). In 2014, IRT Inc. was sold to 

defendant Immediate Response Technologies, LLC (“IRT LLC”). 

Hughes alleges that, while the sale was being negotiated, he was 

promised that he would be retained as the President and CEO of

IRT LLC and paid a share of certain fees. Those promises, he 

claims, induced him to sign agreements concerning the sale of 

IRT Inc. and his employment with IRT LLC. The written 

agreements do not contain any of the promises alleged by Hughes, 

and he was neither named President and CEO of IRT LLC nor 

afforded the share of fees he expected.

In December 2014, Hughes initiated this civil action 

against IRT LLC and IRT Inc. in the Eastern District of 

Virginia. The operative Amended Complaint of February 26, 2015, 

asserts eight claims against IRT LLC: fraud (Count 1); 

constructive fraud (Count 2); fraudulent inducement (Count 3); 

promissory estoppel (Count 4); successor liability (Count 5); 

breach of employment contract (Count 6); failure to pay 

severance (Count 7); and unjust enrichment (Count 8). Two of 

the claims, Counts 6 and 7, are also directed at IRT Inc. While 

IRT LLC responded to the Amended Complaint and its predecessor 
3

with motions for summary judgment, IRT Inc. failed to appear and 

did not answer in any manner.

Following a hearing on March 13, 2015, the district court 

entered an Order awarding summary judgment to IRT LLC on all 

claims “[f]or the reasons stated in open court, as well as in 

[IRT LLC’s] memoranda.” See Hughes v. Immediate Response 

Techs., LLC, No. 1:14-cv-01699 (E.D. Va. Mar. 13, 2015), ECF No. 

57. Hughes filed a motion for reconsideration as to Counts 1 

through 4 and 8. By its Memorandum Opinion and Order of May 6, 

2015, the court denied Hughes’s motion for reconsideration and 

elaborated on the reasons for awarding summary judgment to IRT 

LLC. See Hughes v. Immediate Response Techs., LLC, No. 1:14-cv01699 (E.D. Va. May 6, 2015), ECF Nos. 79-80.

In the meantime, Hughes had filed a motion for a default 

judgment against IRT Inc. By his Report and Recommendation of 

July 17, 2015, the magistrate judge recommended granting in part 

and denying in part that motion. See Hughes v. Immediate 

Response Techs., LLC, No. 1:14-cv-01699 (E.D. Va. July 17, 

2015), ECF No. 93. Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded

that a default judgment should be entered against IRT Inc. as to 

Counts 6 and 7, but that the award should include $35,695.83 in 

compensatory damages, rather than the more than $2 million in 

compensatory and enhanced damages sought by Hughes. The 

magistrate judge also recommended awarding $19,747.10 in 
4

attorney’s fees and costs. Thereafter, by its Order of August 

13, 2015, the district court adopted in full the magistrate 

judge’s Report and Recommendation, rejecting Hughes’s objections 

thereto. See Hughes v. Immediate Response Techs., LLC, No. 

1:14-cv-01699 (E.D. Va. Aug. 13, 2015), ECF No. 99.

Hughes timely noted this appeal, and we possess 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Having carefully 

examined the record and assessed the parties’ written 

submissions together with the argument of counsel, we discern no 

error. We are therefore content to affirm the judgments in 

favor of IRT LLC and against IRT Inc. on the cogent reasoning of 

the district court.

AFFIRMED