Suntex Industrial Corp., Ltd; Rnb Garments Philippines, Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank N.a.

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-2010
___________
SUNTEX INDUSTRIAL CORP., LTD;
RNB GARMENTS PHILIPPINES, INC.
Appellants
v.
CHASE MANHATTAN BANK N.A.; CIT GROUP/BBC INC.,
d/b/a CIT GROUP COMMERCIAL SERVICES, INC.
___________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
(D.C. No. 99-cv-00081)
District Judge: The Honorable Roderick R. McKelvie
___________
ARGUED APRIL 18, 2002
Before: NYGAARD and AMBRO, Circuit Judges,
and O’NEILL, Senior District Judge.
(Filed: May 15, 2002 )
___________
John P. Gleason, Esq. (Argued)
Gleason, Koatz & Dyer
230 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10169
Counsel for Appellant
John H. Culver, III, Esq. (Argued)
Kennedy, Covington, Lobdell & Hickman
100 North Tryon Street, 42nd Floor
Charlotte, NC 28202
Steven L. Caponi, Esq.
Blank, Rome, Comisky & McCauley
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Counsel for Appellee
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________

-- 1 of 2 --

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Appellants, Suntex Industrial Corp., Ltd. and RNB Garments Philippines,
Inc., appeal from an order of the District Court which granted summary judgment in
favor of The CIT Group/BCC, Inc., n/k/a The CIT Group Commercial Services, Inc.
Appellants allege as error the issues listed in paragraph I, taken verbatim from their brief.
Because we conclude that the District Court did not err, we will affirm.
I.
The allegations of error asserted by appellant are as follows:
1. Whether the District Court erred in concluding that appellants had
not established a claim of tortious interference.
2. Whether the District Court erred in concluding that CIT acted with
justification when it refused to waive documentary discrepancies in
appellants’ applications to Chase to honor letters of credit.
3. Whether the District Court held incorrectly that appellants were n
intended third-party beneficiaries of CITs letter of Credit Agreement
with its customer Ruff Hewn.
4. Whether North Carolina law, rather than New York law, is
applicable to appellants’ claims.
II.
The facts and procedural history of this case are well known to the parties
and the court, and it is not necessary that we restate them here. The court has heard oral
argument on the issues presented to us in this appeal. The reasons why we write an
opinion of the court are threefold: to instruct the District Court, to educate and inform the
attorneys and parties, and to explain our decision. None of these reasons are presented
here. We use a not-precedential opinion in cases such as this, in which a precedential
opinion is rendered unnecessary because the opinion has no institutional or precedential
value. See United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Internal Operating
Procedure (I.O.P.) 5.2. Under the usual circumstances when we affirm by not-
precedential opinion and judgment, we "briefly set[] forth the reasons supporting the
court’s decision...." I.O.P. 5.4. In this case, however, we have concluded that neither a
full memorandum explanation nor a precedential opinion is indicated because of the very
extensive and thorough opinion filed by Judge McKelvie of the District Court. Judge
McKelvie’s opinion adequately explains and fully supports its order and refutes the
appellants’ allegations of error. Hence, we believe it wholly unnecessary to further
opine, or offer additional explanations and reasons to those given by the District Court,
why we will affirm. It is a sufficient explanation to say that, essentially for the reasons
given by the District Court in its opinion dated the 28th day of September, 2001, we will
affirm.
III.
In sum, for the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District
Court dated September 28, 2001.
_________________________
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
\s\ Richard L. Nygaa
Circuit Judge

-- 2 of 2 --