Court Opinion

ID: 1000262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:37:39.865883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:38:43.787534
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MCKENZIE CONSTRUCTION
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

HYDRO TECHNOLOGIES OF FLORIDA,
                                                               No. 98-2648
INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee,

and

ANTHONY J. BALLATO,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.
(CA-97-869-2)

Argued: October 28, 1999

Decided: November 18, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Christopher Scott Boynton, COOPER, SPONG &
DAVIS, P.C., Portsmouth, Virginia, for Appellant. Peter Paul
Mitrano, II, Etna, New Hampshire, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Paul
L. Warren, COOPER, SPONG & DAVIS, P.C., Portsmouth, Virginia,
for Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

McKenzie Construction Corporation filed suit in Virginia state
court against Hydro Techologies of Florida and its president, Anthony
J. Ballato, alleging breach of contract and fraud. Hydro removed the
case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Vir-
ginia. After a jury verdict in McKenzie's favor on both counts, the
district court, pursuant to Rule 50(b), granted Hydro's renewed
motion for judgment as a matter of law on the fraud count. McKenzie
appeals, urging that the jury's verdict on fraud be reinstated.

A motion for judgment as a matter of law should be granted when
"there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury"
to find against the movant. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a). The district court
found that McKenzie's evidence was insufficient, as a matter of Vir-
ginia law, to establish the materiality and reliance elements of a fraud
claim. It therefore held that "no reasonable juror could find in favor
of the plaintiff on the claim of fraud."

In reviewing a judgment entered pursuant to Rule 50(b), we con-
strue all facts in the light most favorable to the party against whom
judgment was entered, and we review the district court's legal conclu-
sions de novo. See Konkel v. Bob Evans Farms Inc., 165 F.3d 275,
279 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 68 U.S.L.W. 3106 (U.S. Oct. 4, 1999)
(No. 99-180). Having done so and after careful examination of the
briefs and record and consideration of counsel's oral argument, we
now affirm on the basis of the district court's reasoning. See

                    2
McKenzie Constr. Corp. v. Hyrdo Technologies of Fla ., No.
CA-97-869-2 (E.D. Va. October 8, 1998).

McKenzie, the general contractor on a project to construct an
indoor swimming pool for the City of Virginia Beach, awarded a sub-
contract to Hydro for the application of fiberglass coating to the basin
of the pool. In one of the numerous communications between the par-
ties, Hydro indicated that it intended to use "Polygard" brand coating;
in all other communications Hydro stated that it would use the prod-
uct "Everglass." Hydro did not complete the job, and the fiberglass
coating it applied did not adhere properly to the walls of the pool. The
evidence, taken as a whole, cannot support a reasonable inference that
Hydro's one-time representation that it would use"Polygard" coating
was material to McKenzie, or that McKenzie relied on this represen-
tation in any relevant way. The judgment of the district court is there-
fore

AFFIRMED.

                    3