Court Opinion

ID: 4457355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-11-20 17:00:18.286836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:24.851922
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                     No. 18-2053

FITISTICS, LLC, a Connecticut Limited Liability Company,

                   Plaintiff - Appellee,

            and

SEAN MCKIRDY,

                   Defendant - Appellee,

            v.

ERIK B. CHERDAK,

                   Defendant - Appellant.

                                     No. 19-1732

FITISTICS, LLC, a Connecticut Limited Liability Company,

                   Plaintiff - Appellee,

            and

SEAN MCKIRDY,

                   Defendant - Appellee,

            v.

ERIK B. CHERDAK,
                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00112-LO-JFA; 1:17-cv-00500-LO-
IDD)

Submitted: September 27, 2019                               Decided: November 20, 2019

Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Erik B. Cherdak, Appellant Pro Se. John Daniel Victor Ferman, BANKS &
ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                             2
PER CURIAM:

      Erik B. Cherdak appeals the district court’s judgment entered after a bench trial as

well as several orders disposing of the parties’ postjudgment motions. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. Fitistics, LLC, v. Cherdak, Nos. 1:16-cv-00112-LO-JFA; 1:17-cv-00500-

LO-IDD (E.D. Va. Aug. 23, 2018 & June 10, 2019). We deny the motion to supplement

the record on appeal. We deny Fitistics’ and McKirdy’s motion for sanctions, but caution

Cherdak that continued pursuit of vexatious litigation tactics and the filing of frivolous

appeals may result in sanctions in future cases. We deny Cherdak’s motion for 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

                                            3