Court Opinion

ID: 9389414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 17:01:20.077099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:26.918818
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2017     Doc: 31         Filed: 04/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2017

        LARRY BRYANT, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; DEIDRA
        BRYANT, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,

                            Plaintiffs - Appellants,

                     v.

        KOPPERS, INC.; CULPEPER OF FEDERALSBURG, LLC; CULPEPER OF
        COLUMBIA, INC.; CULPEPER OF FREDERICKSBURG, INC.; CULPEPER OF
        FRUITLAND, LLC,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-02008-RDB)

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                      Decided: April 24, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Mark D. Maneche, Aiden F. Smith, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson,
        Maryland, for Appellants. Gerard J. Gaeng, ROSENBERG MARTIN GREENBERG,
        LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Robert L. Shuftan, Anthony G. Hopp, George V. Desh,
        STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee Koppers Inc. Thomas R.
        Waskom, J. Pierce Lamberson, HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH, LLP, Richmond,
        Virginia, for Appellees Culpeper of Federalsburg, LLC; Culpeper of Columbia, Inc.;
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2017      Doc: 31         Filed: 04/24/2023    Pg: 2 of 4

        Culpeper of Fredericksburg, Inc.; and Culpeper of Fruitland, LLC.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2017       Doc: 31         Filed: 04/24/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Larry and Deidra Bryant appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants’

        motions to dismiss, challenging only the court’s dismissal of their unfair or deceptive trade

        practices claim, see Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), Md. Code Ann., Com.

        Law §§ 13-303, 13-301(1) (LexisNexis 2018), under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). The Bryants

        alleged that Defendants misrepresented that the wood Defendants manufactured would be

        impervious to fungus and rot. The Bryants contracted with a third-party to build a deck

        using Defendants’ product, and, several years later, the Bryants discovered extensive

        fungus that rendered the deck unsound. We affirm.

               We review de novo a district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss under Fed.

        R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), “accept[ing] the factual allegations of the complaint as true and

        constru[ing] them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Rockville Cars,

        LLC v. City of Rockville, 891 F.3d 141, 145 (4th Cir. 2018). “To survive a motion to

        dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim

        to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal

        quotation marks omitted).

               MCPA claims for unfair and deceptive practices under § 13-301(1) “sound[] in

        fraud [and are] subject to the heightened pleading standards of . . . Rule . . . 9(b)”.

        Spaulding v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 714 F.3d 769, 781 (4th Cir. 2013). Rule 9(b) requires

        a plaintiff to plead “with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.” Fed. R. Civ.

        P. 9(b).    “The circumstances include the time, place, and contents of the false

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2017      Doc: 31         Filed: 04/24/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        representations, as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what

        he obtained thereby.” Spaulding, 714 F.3d at 781 (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Our review of the record shows that the Bryants failed to satisfy the heightened

        pleading standard of Rule 9(b) and, therefore, that the district court did not err by

        dismissing the MCPA claim. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s order. 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

                                                     4