Case Name: BAKER P.B.E. WAREHOUSE, INC., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. AKZO NOBEL COATINGS, INC., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee; Classic Paint Company, Inc., d.b.a. MAC Specialty Coatings, Harold I. Moyers, Harold B. Moyers, Defendants-Third-Party-Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Barry W. Kives et al., Third-Party-Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-21
Citations: 155 F. App'x 487
Docket Number: No. 05-1052; D.C. Docket No. 02-00112-CV-JTC-3
Parties: BAKER P.B.E. WAREHOUSE, INC., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. AKZO NOBEL COATINGS, INC., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee, Classic Paint Company, Inc., d.b.a. MAC Specialty Coatings, Harold I. Moyers, Harold B. Moyers, Defendants-Third-Party-Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Barry W. Kives et al., Third-Party-Defendants.
Judges: Before BIRCH and WILSON, Circuit Judges and ROYAL, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 155
Pages: 487–487

Head Matter:
BAKER P.B.E. WAREHOUSE, INC., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. AKZO NOBEL COATINGS, INC., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee, Classic Paint Company, Inc., d.b.a. MAC Specialty Coatings, Harold I. Moyers, Harold B. Moyers, Defendants-Third-Party-Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Barry W. Kives et al., Third-Party-Defendants.
No. 05-10521
D.C. Docket No. 02-00112-CV-JTC-3.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Nov. 21, 2005.
William Perry Hall, Kilborn, Roebuck & McDonald, Vincent F. Kilborn, III, David Allen McDonald, Mobile, AL, for Appellant.
Edward S. Sledge, III, P. Russel Myles, McDowell, Knight, Roedder & Sledge, LLC, Mobile, AL, Daniel S. Reinhardt, Troutman Sanders, Atlanta, GA, for Appellees.
Before BIRCH and WILSON, Circuit Judges and ROYAL, District Judge.
Honorable C. Ashley Royal, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the presentation of oral argument, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.