Case Name: AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAN JOSE WATER CONSERVATION CORPORATION; Michael P. Schroll, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-14
Citations: 325 F. App'x 217
Docket Number: No. 08-1504
Parties: AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAN JOSE WATER CONSERVATION CORPORATION; Michael P. Schroll, Defendants—Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 325
Pages: 217–218

Head Matter:
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAN JOSE WATER CONSERVATION CORPORATION; Michael P. Schroll, Defendants—Appellants.
No. 08-1504.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 28, 2009.
Decided: May 14, 2009.
Peter D. Greenspun, Christie A. Leary, Greenspun, Davis & Leary, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellants. Cynthia E. Rodgers-Waire, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-lee.
Before TRAXLER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and MALCOLM J. HOWARD, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
San Jose Water Conservation Corporation and Michael P. Schroll (collectively, "Appellants") appeal a judgment in favor of AvalonBay Communities, Inc., in Aval-onBay's action arising out of a fraudulent scheme executed by Schroll and San Jose.
Appellants argue that the district court erred in denying their motion to stay the case during the criminal investigation of the case's underlying facts and in not joining alleged co-tortfeasor James Willden as a defendant. We disagree for the reasons stated by the district court. See Avalon-Bay Comtys., Inc. v. San Jose Water Conservation Corp., 2007 WL 2481291 (E.D.Va.2007) (denial of motion to stay); J.A. 663-64 (denial of Schroll's motion for reconsideration). Appellants also argue that the district court erred in drawing adverse inferences from Schroll's invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights and in piercing San Jose's corporate veil. However, as the district court explained, it took neither of those actions.
We therefore affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.