Court Opinion

ID: 9925448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-19 21:01:07.988529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:42.927115
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1933     Doc: 39         Filed: 01/18/2024    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1933

        CARL T. NORTON; NORHURST PROPERTIES DANVILLE, LLC,

                            Plaintiffs - Appellants,

                     v.

        WILKINS & CO. REALTY, INC.; JAMES BUCKNER; EDWARD B. WALKER;
        RE PROSPECTS, LLC; 2291 SCHOOLFIELD, LLC,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Danville. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (4:21-cv-00039-TDS-JEP)

        Submitted: November 30, 2023                                 Decided: January 18, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: J. Chapman Petersen, Won Y. Uh, CHAP PETERSEN & ASSOCIATES,
        PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellants. James A. L. Daniel, Khalilah A. Walters, Michael
        A. Nicholas, DANIEL, MEDLEY & KIRBY, PC, Danville, Virginia, for Appellee James
        Buckner. Mark E. Feldmann, Sr., Paul G. Beers, GLENN, FELDMANN, DARBY &
        GOODLATTE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee Wilkins & Co. Realty, Inc. Harold E.
        Johnson, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia; Mark D. Loftis, WOODS
        ROGERS VANDEVENTER BLACK PLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees Edward B.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1933      Doc: 39         Filed: 01/18/2024    Pg: 2 of 4

        Walker; RE Prospects, LLC; and 2291 Schoolfield, LLC.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1933       Doc: 39         Filed: 01/18/2024      Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Following a real estate transaction, Carl Norton and Norhurst Properties Danville,

        LLC, sued several Defendants in federal court, invoking the court’s diversity jurisdiction

        and alleging claims of fraud and civil and statutory conspiracy under Virginia law.

        Plaintiffs now appeal the district court’s order dismissing their action for failure to state a

        claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Finding no error, we affirm.

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

        Rule 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). In other words, “a plaintiff must provide sufficient detail to show that he has a

        more-than-conceivable chance of success on the merits.” Upstate Forever v. Kinder

        Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 887 F.3d 637, 645 (4th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up), vacated on

        other grounds, 140 S. Ct. 2736 (2020).

               We first address Plaintiffs’ fraud claim. “Under Virginia law, a plaintiff seeking to

        recover for fraud must allege: (1) a false representation, (2) of a material fact, (3) made

        intentionally and knowingly, (4) with intent to mislead, (5) reliance by the party misled,

        and (6) resulting damage to the party misled.” Fessler v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 959 F.3d

        146, 153 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). While Plaintiffs contend that

        they would not have carried out the real estate transaction absent the Defendants’ alleged

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1933       Doc: 39          Filed: 01/18/2024      Pg: 4 of 4

        misrepresentation of the buyer’s identity, Plaintiffs’ allegations reflect that the buyer’s

        identity was immaterial to the transaction. Moreover, Plaintiffs explicitly disclaimed

        reliance on the buyer’s identity in the purchase agreement. We therefore conclude that the

        district court properly found that Plaintiffs failed to allege a claim for fraud.

               We likewise conclude that the district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim of

        civil and statutory conspiracy.     Under Virginia law, “actions for common law civil

        conspiracy and statutory business conspiracy lie only if a plaintiff sustains damages as a

        result of an act that is itself wrongful or tortious.” Dunlap v. Cottman Transmission Sys.,

        LLC, 754 S.E.2d 313, 317 (Va. 2014). Here, Plaintiffs failed to allege facts to support that

        they incurred harm as a result of tortious or unlawful acts taken by the Defendants.

        Accordingly, they failed to state a claim for conspiracy.

               We therefore affirm the district 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